From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: David Laight <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>,
Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>,
Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>,
Ming Lei <[email protected]>,
Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>,
Alexander Viro <[email protected]>,
"Darrick J . Wong" <[email protected]>,
"Martin K . Petersen" <[email protected]>,
Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/6] iov_iter: optimise bvec iov_iter_advance()
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 13:56:25 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 15/12/2020 13:54, David Laight wrote:
> From: Pavel Begunkov
>> Sent: 15 December 2020 11:24
>>
>> On 15/12/2020 09:37, David Laight wrote:
>>> From: Pavel Begunkov
>>>> Sent: 15 December 2020 00:20
>>>>
>>>> iov_iter_advance() is heavily used, but implemented through generic
>>>> iteration. As bvecs have a specifically crafted advance() function, i.e.
>>>> bvec_iter_advance(), which is faster and slimmer, use it instead.
>>>>
>>>> lib/iov_iter.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>> [...]
>>>> void iov_iter_advance(struct iov_iter *i, size_t size)
>>>> {
>>>> if (unlikely(iov_iter_is_pipe(i))) {
>>>> @@ -1077,6 +1092,10 @@ void iov_iter_advance(struct iov_iter *i, size_t size)
>>>> i->count -= size;
>>>> return;
>>>> }
>>>> + if (iov_iter_is_bvec(i)) {
>>>> + iov_iter_bvec_advance(i, size);
>>>> + return;
>>>> + }
>>>> iterate_and_advance(i, size, v, 0, 0, 0)
>>>> }
>>>
>>> This seems to add yet another comparison before what is probably
>>> the common case on an IOVEC (ie normal userspace buffer).
>>
>> If Al finally takes the patch for iov_iter_is_*() helpers it would
>> be completely optimised out.
>
> I knew I didn't have that path - the sources I looked at aren't that new.
> Didn't know its state.
>
> In any case that just stops the same test being done twice.
> In still changes the order of the tests.
>
> The three 'unlikely' cases should really be inside a single
> 'unlikely' test for all three bits.
> Then there is only one mis-predictable jump prior to the usual path.
>
> By adding the test before iterate_and_advance() you are (effectively)
> optimising for the bvec (and discard) cases.
Take a closer look, bvec check is already first in iterate_and_advance().
Anyway, that all is an unrelated story.
> Adding 'unlikely()' won't make any difference on some architectures.
> IIRC recent intel x86 don't have a 'static prediction' for unknown
> branches - they just use whatever in is the branch predictor tables.
--
Pavel Begunkov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-15 14:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-15 0:20 [PATCH v1 0/6] no-copy bvec Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-15 0:20 ` [PATCH v1 1/6] target/file: allocate the bvec array as part of struct target_core_file_cmd Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-15 0:20 ` [PATCH v1 2/6] iov_iter: optimise bvec iov_iter_advance() Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-15 9:37 ` David Laight
2020-12-15 11:23 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-15 13:54 ` David Laight
2020-12-15 13:56 ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2020-12-22 14:03 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-15 0:20 ` [PATCH v1 3/6] bio: deduplicate adding a page into bio Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-22 14:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-15 0:20 ` [PATCH v1 4/6] block/psi: remove PSI annotations from direct IO Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-15 0:56 ` Dave Chinner
2020-12-15 1:03 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-15 1:33 ` Dave Chinner
2020-12-15 11:41 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-22 14:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-15 0:20 ` [PATCH v1 5/6] bio: add a helper calculating nr segments to alloc Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-15 1:00 ` Dave Chinner
2020-12-15 1:07 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-15 1:09 ` Dave Chinner
2020-12-22 14:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-15 0:20 ` [PATCH v1 6/6] block/iomap: don't copy bvec for direct IO Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-15 1:09 ` Dave Chinner
2020-12-15 1:15 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-22 14:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-15 1:41 ` [PATCH v1 0/6] no-copy bvec Ming Lei
2020-12-15 11:14 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-15 12:03 ` Ming Lei
2020-12-15 14:05 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-22 14:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-23 12:52 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-23 15:51 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-23 16:04 ` James Bottomley
2020-12-23 20:23 ` Douglas Gilbert
2020-12-23 20:32 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-12-24 6:41 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-12-24 16:45 ` Douglas Gilbert
2020-12-24 17:30 ` James Bottomley
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 \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[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