On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 01:51:26PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 05:34:32PM +0530, afzal mohammed wrote:
>
> > Observation is that max. pages reaching copy_{from,to}_user() is 2,
> > observed maximum of n (number of bytes) being 1 page size. i think C
> > library cuts any size read, write to page size (if it exceeds) &
> > invokes the system call. Max. pages reaching 2, happens when 'n'
> > crosses page boundary, this has been observed w/ small size request
> > as well w/ ones of exact page size (but not page aligned).
> >
> > Even w/ dd of various size >4K, never is the number of pages required
> > to be mapped going greater than 2 (even w/ 'dd' 'bs=1M')
> >
> > i have a worry (don't know whether it is an unnecessary one): even
> > if we improve performance w/ large copy sizes, it might end up in a
> > sluggishness w.r.t user experience due to most (hence a high amount)
> > of user copy calls being few bytes & there the penalty being higher.
> > And benchmark would not be able to detect anything abnormal since
> > usercopy are being tested on large sizes.
> >
> > Quickly comparing boot-time on Beagle Bone White, boot time increases
> > by only 4%, perhaps this worry is irrelevant, but just thought will
> > put it across.
>
> Do stat(2) of the same tmpfs file in a loop (on tmpfs, to eliminate
> the filesystem playing silly buggers). And I wouldn't expect anything
> good there...
Incidentally, what about get_user()/put_user()? _That_ is where it's
going to really hurt...
