From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Kees Cook <[email protected]>, Will Deacon <[email protected]>
Cc: 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 10:00:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201912110851.88536F3F@keescook>
On 12/11/19 9:56 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> 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%.
That looks very promising! Hopefully the patch is moot at that point, I
dropped it from the series yesterday in any case. I'll revisit as soon
as I can and holler if there's an issue.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-11 17:00 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
2019-12-11 17:00 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
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 \
[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