On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 3:55 PM afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 02:02:13PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:18 PM afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > Roughly a one-third drop in performance. Disabling highmem improves
> > > performance only slightly.
>
> > There are probably some things that can be done to optimize it,
> > but I guess most of the overhead is from the page table operations
> > and cannot be avoided.
>
> Ingo's series did a follow_page() first, then as a fallback did it
> invoke get_user_pages(), i will try that way as well.
Right, that could help, in particular for the small copies. I think a lot
of usercopy calls are only for a few bytes, though this is of course
highly workload dependent and you might only care about the large
ones.
> Yes, i too feel get_user_pages_fast() path is the most time consuming,
> will instrument & check.
>
> > What was the exact 'dd' command you used, in particular the block size?
> > Note that by default, 'dd' will request 512 bytes at a time, so you usually
> > only access a single page. It would be interesting to see the overhead with
> > other typical or extreme block sizes, e.g. '1', '64', '4K', '64K' or '1M'.
>
> It was the default(512), more test results follows (in MB/s),
>
> 512 1K 4K 16K 32K 64K 1M
>
> w/o series 30 46 89 95 90 85 65
>
> w/ series 22 36 72 79 78 75 61
>
> perf drop 26% 21% 19% 16% 13% 12% 6%
>
> Hmm, results ain't that bad :)
There is also still hope of optimizing small aligned copies like
set_ttbr0(user_ttbr);
ldm();
set_ttbr0(kernel_ttbr);
stm();
which could do e.g. 32 bytes at a time, but with more overhead
if you have to loop around it.
Arnd
