From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@mellanox.co.il>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Cc: discuss@x86-64.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] f_ops flag to speed up compatible ioctls in linux kernel
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:45:18 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040907134517.GA1016@mellanox.co.il> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040907121418.GC25051@wotan.suse.de>
Hello!
Quoting r. Andi Kleen (ak@suse.de) "Re: [discuss] f_ops flag to speed up compatible ioctls in linux kernel":
> On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 01:40:17PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Hello!
> > Quoting Andi Kleen (ak@suse.de) "Re: [discuss] f_ops flag to speed up compatible ioctls in linux kernel":
> > > On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 10:22:45AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > Hello!
> > > > Currently, on the x86_64 architecture, its quite tricky to make
> > > > a char device ioctl work for an x86 executables.
> > > > In particular,
> > > > 1. there is a requirement that ioctl number is unique -
> > > > which is hard to guarantee especially for out of kernel modules
> > >
> > > Yes, that is a problem for some people. But you should
> > > have used an unique number in the first place.
> >
> > Do you mean the _IOC macro and friends?
> > But their uniqueness depends on allocating a unique magic number
> > in the first place.
>
> Yep. It's not bullet proof, but works pretty well in practice with
> a little care.
Hrmp. I for one *would* like something moer bulletproof.
> >
> > > There are some hackish ways to work around it for non modules[1], but at some
> > > point we should probably support it better.
> > >
> > > [1] it can be handled, except for module unloading, so you have
> > > to disable that.
> >
> > Why use the global hash at all?
> > Why not, for example, pass a parameter to the ioctl function
> > to make it possible to figure out this is a compat call?
>
> The main reason is that traditionally there was some resistance
> to put compat code into the drivers itself because it "looked too
> ugly". So it was just put into a few centralized files. Patching
> all the f_ops wouldn't have been practical for this.
>
> Maybe it could be added as an additional mechanism now though.
I'll try to add it and see what this does not performance,
if this helps I'll send a patch.
> > > > 2. there's a performance huge overhead for each compat call - there's
> > > > a hash lookup in a global hash inside a lock_kernel -
> > > > and I think compat performance *is* important.
> > >
> > > Did you actually measure it? I doubt it is a big issue.
> > >
> >
> > But that would depend on what the driver actually does inside
> > the ioctl and on how many ioctls are already registered, would it not?
>
> Most ioctls should be registered at boot, the additional ones
> are probably negligible.
But this does not matter - the hash collision will add overhead
on each lookup - and whether you have collisions is a matter of luck -
theoretically, some users may use such drivers that you may always have
collisions.
> >
> > I built a silly driver example which just used a semaphore and a switch
> > statement inside the ioctl.
> >
> > ~/<1>tavor/tools/driver_new>time /tmp/ioctltest64 /dev/mst/mt23108_pci_cr0
> > 0.357u 4.760s 0:05.11 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
> > ~/<1>tavor/tools/driver_new>time /tmp/ioctltest32 /dev/mst/mt23108_pci_cr0
> > 0.641u 6.486s 0:07.12 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
> >
> > So just looking at system time there seems to be an overhead of
> > about 20%.
>
> That's with an empty ioctl?
Not exactly empty - below's the code snippet.
***
static int ioctl (struct inode *inode, struct file *file, unsigned int opcode, unsigned long udata_l)
{
void* udata=(void*)udata_l;
int minor=MINOR(inode->i_rdev);
struct dev_data* dev=&devices[minor];
int ret=0;
/* By convention, any user gets read access
* and is allowed to use the device.
* Commands with no direction are administration
* commands, and you need write permission
* for this */
if ( _IOC_DIR(opcode) == _IOC_NONE ) {
if (! ( file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE) ) return -EPERM;
} else {
if (! ( file->f_mode & FMODE_READ) ) return -EPERM;
}
if (down_interruptible(&devices[minor].sem)) {
return -ERESTARTSYS;
}
switch (opcode) {
/* .. snip .. */
case PARAMS:
{
struct mst_pci_params_st paramsd;
paramsd.bar=dev->bar;
paramsd.size=dev->size;
if (copy_to_user(udata, ¶msd, sizeof(paramsd))) {
ret=-EFAULT;
}
goto fin;
}
default:
ret= -ENOTTY;
goto fin;
}
fin:
up(&devices[minor].sem);
return ret;
}
***
> I would expect most ioctls to do
> more work, so the overhead would be less.
> Still it could be probably made better.
Then I expect you'll get bitten by the BKL taken while ioctl runs.
That's another issue that needs addressing, in my opinion.
> > The overhead is bigger if there are collisions in the hash.
> >
> > For muti-processor scenarious, the difference is much more pronounced
> > (note I have dual-cpu Opteron system):
> >
> > ~>time /tmp/ioctltest32 /dev/mst/mt23108_pci_cr0 & ;time /tmp/ioctltest32
> > /dev/mst/mt23108_pci_cr0 &
> > [2] 10829
> > [3] 10830
> > [2] Done /tmp/ioctltest32 /dev/mst/mt23108_pci_cr0
> > 0.435u 21.322s 0:21.76 99.9% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
> > [3] Done /tmp/ioctltest32 /dev/mst/mt23108_pci_cr0
> > 0.683u 21.231s 0:21.92 99.9% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
> > ~>
> >
> >
> > ~>time /tmp/ioctltest64 /dev/mst/mt23108_pci_cr0 & ;time /tmp/ioctltest64
> > /dev/mst/mt23108_pci_cr0 &
> > [2] 10831
> > [3] 10832
> > [3] Done /tmp/ioctltest64 /dev/mst/mt23108_pci_cr0
> > 0.474u 11.194s 0:11.70 99.6% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
> > [2] Done /tmp/ioctltest64 /dev/mst/mt23108_pci_cr0
> > 0.476u 11.277s 0:11.75 99.9% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
> > ~>
> >
> > So we get 50% slowdown.
> > I imagine this is the result of BKL contention during the hash lookup.
>
>
> Ok, this could be improved agreed (although I still think your microbenchmark
> is a bit too artificial)
>
> In theory the BKL could be dropped from the lookup anyways
> if RCU is needed for the cleanup. For locking the handler
> itself into memory it doesn't make any difference.
>
> What happens when you just remove the lock_kernel() there?
> (as long as you don't unload any modules this should be safe)
>
> -Andi
Well, I personally do want to enable module unloading.
I think I'll add a new entry point to f_ops and see what *this* does
to speed. That would be roughly equivalent, and cleaner, right?
MST
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-07 13:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-01 7:22 f_ops flag to speed up compatible ioctls in linux kernel Michael S. Tsirkin
2004-09-01 7:32 ` viro
2004-09-01 7:44 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2004-09-01 7:47 ` Lee Revell
2004-09-01 8:19 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2004-09-01 15:55 ` Roland Dreier
2004-09-01 18:02 ` Chris Wright
2004-09-01 18:12 ` Roland Dreier
2004-09-01 18:31 ` viro
2004-09-01 20:54 ` Roland Dreier
[not found] ` <20040901170800.K1924@build.pdx.osdl.net>
[not found] ` <20040901190122.L1924@build.pdx.osdl.net>
2004-09-02 3:46 ` Roland Dreier
2004-09-01 18:06 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-09-01 8:30 ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-09-01 15:40 ` [PATCH] fs/compat.c: rwsem instead of BKL around ioctl32_hash_table Roland Dreier
2004-09-01 23:27 ` Andrew Morton
2004-09-02 21:14 ` Andi Kleen
2004-09-02 22:26 ` Roland Dreier
2004-09-03 14:37 ` [discuss] " Andi Kleen
2004-09-03 14:55 ` Roland Dreier
2004-09-03 15:02 ` Andi Kleen
2004-09-03 8:00 ` [discuss] f_ops flag to speed up compatible ioctls in linux kernel Andi Kleen
2004-09-07 10:40 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2004-09-07 12:14 ` Andi Kleen
2004-09-07 13:45 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2004-09-07 14:15 ` Andi Kleen
2004-09-07 14:25 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2004-09-07 14:29 ` Andi Kleen
2004-09-07 14:37 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2004-09-07 14:44 ` Andi Kleen
2004-09-07 14:45 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2004-09-07 15:10 ` Andi Kleen
2004-09-07 18:16 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2004-09-08 6:55 ` Andi Kleen
2004-09-08 14:28 ` [patch] " Michael S. Tsirkin
2004-09-08 14:38 ` Andi Kleen
2004-09-08 14:54 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2004-09-08 14:58 ` Andi Kleen
2004-09-12 20:05 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2004-09-15 13:19 ` [patch] Re: [discuss] " Michael S. Tsirkin
2004-09-07 21:36 ` Is FIOQSIZE compatible? ( was Re: f_ops flag to speed up compatible ioctls in linux kernel) Michael S. Tsirkin
2004-09-08 6:54 ` Andi Kleen
2004-09-07 15:03 ` [discuss] f_ops flag to speed up compatible ioctls in linux kernel Herbert Poetzl
2004-09-07 18:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2004-09-09 13:54 ` Herbert Poetzl
2004-12-12 21:51 ` how to detect a 32 bit process on 64 bit kernel Michael S. Tsirkin
2004-12-12 22:01 ` Jan Engelhardt
2004-12-12 22:23 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-12-13 19:50 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2004-12-13 21:01 ` Jan Engelhardt
2004-12-13 21:32 ` Brian Gerst
2004-12-13 21:37 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2004-12-12 22:37 ` Willy Tarreau
2004-12-12 23:30 ` Bongani Hlope
2004-12-14 7:28 ` Andi Kleen
2004-09-20 14:49 ` [patch] speed up ioctls in linux kernel Michael S. Tsirkin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040907134517.GA1016@mellanox.co.il \
--to=mst@mellanox.co.il \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=discuss@x86-64.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).