From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pg1-f201.google.com (mail-pg1-f201.google.com [209.85.215.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 616E225F998 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2025 05:33:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.215.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761629615; cv=none; b=staU8I4weNz7B1GVH2Ri1VerVq6CrA6rb6Ec5Lcz+Q6dyMe7IFuO3a1BtpnhfYC1qvmwGjQykoTCYKP/DO+XefsoPOEn11Vks+ARvF5JZNZzAzfI5yk9Tr2w50+12glJnkmzna2QV9ITKVmS4KmSzVYIuZ/cMgjCZn9QI8GqXpc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761629615; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+l4uaBwMtekNA8nK6ui8ldAW15jCbyYnOgjlIKh3+No=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=ng5fNVR7JudL7HqBsv2XmTjBitvSIDVZg0ANCR3cV2LNdk7HPvfH9VOFYKlGBvQfys+0wLGx2hbErZBJtQdxmTtWMGTbK2l87io7p9DoXDbGvrwAJh5vRFHrYwjDu+AZiNGpg5zRqU1UabtS4uf6WOdAUxK8vfQq2G1svn8+cIs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--kuniyu.bounces.google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=dOzftIrO; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.215.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--kuniyu.bounces.google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="dOzftIrO" Received: by mail-pg1-f201.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-b471737e673so8772475a12.1 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2025 22:33:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1761629612; x=1762234412; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=978k93bL9MxlYRkaTWrSvPo0X/ixK1lZJ0FCxsOFego=; b=dOzftIrOp69r7UOSzZr3EhumDLgzsoJtMTj7CuY+JNWOP55f9lj2p1Iogcy5NEEFne hj5lgscJr+YOc2EHNgu3hwiDhInPsFMFnTY1zr8EZPSwdnCy+2V/OpmVDVlMuyvlxWy2 wRlK3ZOCaWUfHRqxT/NSJHiJzVWlVLoHvAv33Kb+TMwWkRlDVl0qlPw8Jq0p6Z3N0uux SWhBV4di8U8KIC4JRPBl0/2SOoRCpqx+D5qJHSxZ6g3gLA1MiWg9cB0M2MDrw6HJFnO2 440NjGByaMhjRGTw1T91Q4EqyAlLmKhJcu+beOq+sMj7lgZLcS2q/PYsT4aFCVTp8AB6 rV+Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1761629612; x=1762234412; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=978k93bL9MxlYRkaTWrSvPo0X/ixK1lZJ0FCxsOFego=; b=OcZW/W0F5cn5qbQNLuE5lS6mCphN+V3lwykWt8qOnBeU7KbR8GZWbJ/H5MP8qGtcxN Il/yGBHVbB6kxLPZ6P7qkBUxRfdGMNHexoDwKkvm0rcRtNChJrRgTr9lThWiESj19xTl wRHPLt3q5UGwB1DTcrCGx7hgKHojeTgvrg3s0LyJvMpXKi7FGf9rJ5bJUb8crdpXfFfq JrmXEigD6kHOK8h/AN62LVS90Sn4+1ucnsKpX+tEAAo5drn+FMuJshZM9Xl+Tt0Lttu7 gVbDmjcqshOWBz+/F1jNCawP6h8fxnLxdmM8wQdxsRU76gGs/oXrdcaOLqtv/CaXBpke VH9w== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWTTbGH3vsl9yYopYNGKN3lO8exMKGtxikhoOESivYyhGtyL2uIH0gh2HBQdz9G7nXHxh5SJDd9jWJOlnc=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzMCEOX+QAFFOEN8J3mQDRRJdkV4fQgUFuRm5R7iytZcEY2J8jq DBulFoyf1Gs3rgJjaPwGCTcAhgC13lSpWF61374NfO7Hz0lwyo2lAqs1oE2rMOPkSS7yonw/lIK QFX8cVQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEgPd1Vro8jar4YuvbY14ALahZ9RGAW96D7MCTDGrIDbCO1GDP/qete02Qehy0msaJmFvHad1jiwWY= X-Received: from pjxx4.prod.google.com ([2002:a17:90b:58c4:b0:33d:98cb:883b]) (user=kuniyu job=prod-delivery.src-stubby-dispatcher) by 2002:a17:903:2290:b0:273:ab5f:a507 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-294cb394740mr35360685ad.21.1761629612502; Mon, 27 Oct 2025 22:33:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 05:32:13 +0000 In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.51.1.838.g19442a804e-goog Message-ID: <20251028053330.2391078-1-kuniyu@google.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] epoll: Use __user_write_access_begin() and unsafe_put_user() in epoll_put_uevent(). From: Kuniyuki Iwashima To: dave.hansen@intel.com Cc: alex@ghiti.fr, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, axboe@kernel.dk, bp@alien8.de, brauner@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, edumazet@google.com, hpa@zytor.com, kuni1840@gmail.com, kuniyu@google.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, maddy@linux.ibm.com, mingo@redhat.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, npiggin@gmail.com, palmer@dabbelt.com, pjw@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, will@kernel.org, x86@kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" From: Dave Hansen Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 07:05:50 -0700 > On 10/23/25 22:16, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote: > >> This makes me nervous. The access_ok() check is quite a distance away. > >> I'd kinda want to see some performance numbers before doing this. Is > >> removing a single access_ok() even measurable? > > I noticed I made a typo in commit message, s/tcp_rr/udp_rr/. > > > > epoll_put_uevent() can be called multiple times in a single > > epoll_wait(), and we can see 1.7% more pps on UDP even when > > 1 thread has 1000 sockets only: > > > > server: $ udp_rr --nolog -6 -F 1000 -T 1 -l 3600 > > client: $ udp_rr --nolog -6 -F 1000 -T 256 -l 3600 -c -H $SERVER > > server: $ nstat > /dev/null; sleep 10; nstat | grep -i udp > > > > Without patch (2 stac/clac): > > Udp6InDatagrams 2205209 0.0 > > > > With patch (1 stac/clac): > > Udp6InDatagrams 2242602 0.0 > > I'm totally with you about removing a stac/clac: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250228203722.CAEB63AC@davehans-spike.ostc.intel.com/ > > The thing I'm worried about is having the access_ok() so distant > from the unsafe_put_user(). I'm wondering if this: > > - __user_write_access_begin(uevent, sizeof(*uevent)); > + if (!user_write_access_begin(uevent, sizeof(*uevent)) > + return NULL; > unsafe_put_user(revents, &uevent->events, efault); > unsafe_put_user(data, &uevent->data, efault); > user_access_end(); > > is measurably slower than what was in your series. If it is > not measurably slower, then the series gets simpler because it > does not need to refactor user_write_access_begin(). It also ends > up more obviously correct because the access check is closer to > the unsafe_put_user() calls. > > Also, the extra access_ok() is *much* cheaper than stac/clac. Sorry for the late! I rebased on 19ab0a22efbd and tested 4 versions on AMD EPYC 7B12 machine: 1) Base 19ab0a22efbd 2) masked_user_access_begin() -> 97% pps and 96% calls of ep_try_send_events() 3) user_write_access_begin() (Dave's diff above) (NEW) -> 102.2% pps and 103% calls of ep_try_send_events() 4) __user_write_access_begin() (This patch) -> 102.4% pps and 103% calls of ep_try_send_events(). Interestingly user_write_access_begin() was as fast as __user_write_access_begin() ! Also, as with the previous result, masked_user_access_begin() was the worst somehow. So, I'll drop patch 1 and post v2 with user_write_access_begin(). Thank you! 1) Base (19ab0a22efbd) # nstat > /dev/null; sleep 10; nstat | grep -i udp Udp6InDatagrams 2184011 0.0 @ep_try_send_events_ns: [256, 512) 2796601 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@| [512, 1K) 627863 |@@@@@@@@@@@ | [1K, 2K) 166403 |@@@ | [2K, 4K) 10437 | | [4K, 8K) 1396 | | [8K, 16K) 116 | | 2) masked_user_access_begin() + masked_user_access_begin() 97% pps compared to 1). 96% calls of ep_try_send_events(). # nstat > /dev/null; sleep 10; nstat | grep -i udp Udp6InDatagrams 2120498 0.0 @ep_try_send_events_ns: [256, 512) 2690803 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@| [512, 1K) 533750 |@@@@@@@@@@ | [1K, 2K) 225969 |@@@@ | [2K, 4K) 35176 | | [4K, 8K) 2428 | | [8K, 16K) 199 | | 3) user_write_access_begin() 102.2% pps compared to 1). 103% calls of ep_try_send_events(). # nstat > /dev/null; sleep 10; nstat | grep -i udp Udp6InDatagrams 2232730 0.0 @ep_try_send_events_ns: [256, 512) 2900655 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@| [512, 1K) 622045 |@@@@@@@@@@@ | [1K, 2K) 172831 |@@@ | [2K, 4K) 17687 | | [4K, 8K) 1103 | | [8K, 16K) 174 | | 4) __user_write_access_begin() 102.4% pps compared to 1). 103% calls of ep_try_send_events(). # nstat > /dev/null; sleep 10; nstat | grep -i udp Udp6InDatagrams 2238524 0.0 @ep_try_send_events_ns: [256, 512) 2906752 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@| [512, 1K) 630199 |@@@@@@@@@@@ | [1K, 2K) 161741 |@@ | [2K, 4K) 17141 | | [4K, 8K) 1041 | | [8K, 16K) 61 | |