From: hpa@zytor.com
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 5/9] x86/ioport: Reduce ioperm impact for sane usage further
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 15:20:15 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8D806995-2FC5-4CE0-89D7-165D461D5242@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1911072223000.27903@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
On November 7, 2019 1:32:15 PM PST, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>On Thu, 7 Nov 2019, Brian Gerst wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 2:54 PM Linus Torvalds
>> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:24 AM Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Here is a different idea: We already map the TSS virtually in
>> > > cpu_entry_area. Why not page-align the IO bitmap and remap it to
>the
>> > > task's bitmap on task switch? That would avoid all copying on
>task
>> > > switch.
>> >
>> > We map the tss _once_, statically, percpu, without ever changing
>it,
>> > and then we just (potentially) change a couple of fields in it on
>> > process switch.
>> >
>> > Your idea isn't horrible, but it would involve a TLB flush for the
>> > page when the io bitmap changes. Which is almost certainly more
>> > expensive than just copying the bitmap intelligently.
>> >
>> > Particularly since I do think that the copy can basically be done
>> > effectively never, assuming there really aren't multiple concurrent
>> > users of ioperm() (and iopl).
>>
>> There wouldn't have to be a flush on every task switch. If we make
>it
>> so that tasks that don't use a bitmap just unmap the pages in the
>> cpu_entry_area and set tss.io_bitmap_base to outside the segment
>> limit, we would only have to flush when switching from a task using
>> the bitmap (because the next task uses a different bitmap or we are
>> unmapping it). If the previous task doesn't have a bitmap the pages
>> in cpu_entry_area were unmapped and can't be in the TLB, so no flush
>> is needed.
>
>Funny. I was just debating exactly this with Peter Ziljstra over IRC :)
>
>> Going a step further, we could track which task is mapped to the
>> current cpu like proposed above, and only flush when a different task
>> needs the IO bitmap, or when the bitmap is being freed on task exit.
>
>Yes.
>
>But, we really should check what aside of DoSemu is using this still.
>None
>of my machines I checked have a single instance of ioperm()/iopl()
>usage.
>
>So the real question is whether it's worth the trouble or if we are
>just
>better off to copy if there is an actual user and the sequence count of
>the
>bitmap is different than the one which was active last time.
>
>Thanks,
>
> tglx
I have written suffer using this, because of far better real time performance. I just want to punch a hole (just like mmapping an MMIO device.)
I do agree that let's not optimize for the rare case.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-07 23:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-06 19:34 [patch 0/9] x86/iopl: Prevent user space from using CLI/STI with iopl(3) Thomas Gleixner
2019-11-06 19:35 ` [patch 1/9] x86/ptrace: Prevent truncation of bitmap size Thomas Gleixner
2019-11-07 7:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-11-06 19:35 ` [patch 2/9] x86/process: Unify copy_thread_tls() Thomas Gleixner
2019-11-08 22:31 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-11-08 23:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-11-10 12:36 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-11-10 16:56 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-11-11 8:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-06 19:35 ` [patch 3/9] x86/cpu: Unify cpu_init() Thomas Gleixner
2019-11-08 22:34 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-11-06 19:35 ` [patch 4/9] x86/io: Speedup schedule out of I/O bitmap user Thomas Gleixner
2019-11-07 9:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-07 14:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-11-07 14:08 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-11-08 22:41 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-11-08 23:45 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-11-09 3:32 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-11-10 12:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-11-09 0:24 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-11-06 19:35 ` [patch 5/9] x86/ioport: Reduce ioperm impact for sane usage further Thomas Gleixner
2019-11-07 1:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-11-07 7:44 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-11-07 8:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-11-07 9:17 ` Willy Tarreau
2019-11-07 10:00 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-11-07 10:13 ` Willy Tarreau
2019-11-07 10:19 ` hpa
2019-11-07 10:27 ` Willy Tarreau
2019-11-07 10:50 ` hpa
2019-11-07 12:56 ` Willy Tarreau
2019-11-07 16:45 ` Eric W. Biederman
2019-11-07 16:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-11-07 16:57 ` Willy Tarreau
2019-11-10 17:17 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-11-07 7:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-11-07 7:45 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-11-07 8:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-11-07 18:02 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-11-07 19:24 ` Brian Gerst
2019-11-07 19:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-11-07 21:00 ` Brian Gerst
2019-11-07 21:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-11-07 23:20 ` hpa [this message]
2019-11-07 21:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-11-08 1:12 ` H. Peter Anvin
2019-11-08 2:12 ` Brian Gerst
2019-11-10 17:21 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-11-06 19:35 ` [patch 6/9] x86/iopl: Fixup misleading comment Thomas Gleixner
2019-11-06 19:35 ` [patch 7/9] x86/iopl: Restrict iopl() permission scope Thomas Gleixner
2019-11-07 9:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-10 17:26 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-11-10 20:31 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-11-10 21:05 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-11-10 21:21 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-11-06 19:35 ` [patch 8/9] x86/iopl: Remove legacy IOPL option Thomas Gleixner
2019-11-07 6:11 ` Jürgen Groß
2019-11-07 6:26 ` hpa
2019-11-07 16:44 ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-11-07 9:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-06 19:35 ` [patch 9/9] selftests/x86/iopl: Verify that CLI/STI result in #GP Thomas Gleixner
2019-11-07 7:28 ` [patch] x86/iopl: Remove unused local variable, update comments in ksys_ioperm() Ingo Molnar
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=8D806995-2FC5-4CE0-89D7-165D461D5242@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=brgerst@gmail.com \
--cc=jgross@suse.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=w@1wt.eu \
--cc=x86@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).