From: Kees Cook <[email protected]>
To: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
Cc: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>, Jann Horn <[email protected]>,
io-uring <[email protected]>,
Kernel Hardening <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/11] io_uring: use atomic_t for refcounts
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 08:56:44 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201912110851.88536F3F@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191211102012.GA4123@willie-the-truck>
On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 10:20:13AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 03:55:05PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 12/10/19 3:46 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 03:21:04PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >> On 12/10/19 3:04 PM, Jann Horn wrote:
> > >>> [context preserved for additional CCs]
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 4:57 PM Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>> Recently had a regression that turned out to be because
> > >>>> CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL was set.
> > >>>
> > >>> I assume "regression" here refers to a performance regression? Do you
> > >>> have more concrete numbers on this? Is one of the refcounting calls
> > >>> particularly problematic compared to the others?
> > >>
> > >> Yes, a performance regression. io_uring is using io-wq now, which does
> > >> an extra get/put on the work item to make it safe against async cancel.
> > >> That get/put translates into a refcount_inc and refcount_dec per work
> > >> item, and meant that we went from 0.5% refcount CPU in the test case to
> > >> 1.5%. That's a pretty substantial increase.
> > >>
> > >>> I really don't like it when raw atomic_t is used for refcounting
> > >>> purposes - not only because that gets rid of the overflow checks, but
> > >>> also because it is less clear semantically.
> > >>
> > >> Not a huge fan either, but... It's hard to give up 1% of extra CPU. You
> > >> could argue I could just turn off REFCOUNT_FULL, and I could. Maybe
> > >> that's what I should do. But I'd prefer to just drop the refcount on the
> > >> io_uring side and keep it on for other potential useful cases.
> > >
> > > There is no CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL any more. Will Deacon's version came
> > > out as nearly identical to the x86 asm version. Can you share the
> > > workload where you saw this? We really don't want to regression refcount
> > > protections, especially in the face of new APIs.
> > >
> > > Will, do you have a moment to dig into this?
> >
> > Ah, hopefully it'll work out ok, then. The patch came from testing the
> > full backport on 5.2.
Oh good! I thought we had some kind of impossible workload. :)
> > Do you have a link to the "nearly identical"? I can backport that
> > patch and try on 5.2.
>
> You could try my refcount/full branch, which is what ended up getting merged
> during the merge window:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/will/linux.git/log/?h=refcount/full
Yeah, as you can see in the measured tight-loop timings in
https://git.kernel.org/linus/dcb786493f3e48da3272b710028d42ec608cfda1
there was 0.1% difference for Will's series compared to the x86 assembly
version, where as the old FULL was almost 70%.
--
Kees Cook
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-11 16:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-10 15:57 [PATCHSET 0/11] io_uring improvements/fixes for 5.5-rc Jens Axboe
2019-12-10 15:57 ` [PATCH 01/11] io_uring: allow unbreakable links Jens Axboe
2019-12-10 21:10 ` Pavel Begunkov
2019-12-10 21:12 ` Jens Axboe
2019-12-10 21:28 ` Pavel Begunkov
2019-12-10 22:17 ` Jens Axboe
2019-12-10 15:57 ` [PATCH 02/11] io-wq: remove worker->wait waitqueue Jens Axboe
2019-12-10 15:57 ` [PATCH 03/11] io-wq: briefly spin for new work after finishing work Jens Axboe
2019-12-10 15:57 ` [PATCH 04/11] io_uring: sqthread should grab ctx->uring_lock for submissions Jens Axboe
2019-12-10 15:57 ` [PATCH 05/11] io_uring: deferred send/recvmsg should assign iov Jens Axboe
2019-12-10 15:57 ` [PATCH 06/11] io_uring: don't dynamically allocate poll data Jens Axboe
2019-12-10 15:57 ` [PATCH 07/11] io_uring: use atomic_t for refcounts Jens Axboe
2019-12-10 22:04 ` Jann Horn
2019-12-10 22:21 ` Jens Axboe
2019-12-10 22:46 ` Kees Cook
2019-12-10 22:55 ` Jens Axboe
2019-12-11 10:20 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-11 16:56 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2019-12-11 17:00 ` Jens Axboe
2019-12-10 15:57 ` [PATCH 08/11] io_uring: run next sqe inline if possible Jens Axboe
2019-12-10 15:57 ` [PATCH 09/11] io_uring: only hash regular files for async work execution Jens Axboe
2019-12-10 15:57 ` [PATCH 10/11] net: make socket read/write_iter() honor IOCB_NOWAIT Jens Axboe
2019-12-10 19:37 ` David Miller
2019-12-10 20:43 ` Jens Axboe
2019-12-10 15:57 ` [PATCH 11/11] io_uring: add sockets to list of files that support non-blocking issue Jens Axboe
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=201912110851.88536F3F@keescook \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/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