On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 03:01:46PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:03:31 +0100
> Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> wrote:
>
> > drm/i915 wants to read/write more than one page in its fastpath
> > and hence needs to prefault more than PAGE_SIZE bytes.
> >
> > I've checked the callsites and they all already clamp size when
> > calling fault_in_pages_* to the same as for the subsequent
> > __copy_to|from_user and hence don't rely on the implicit clamping
> > to PAGE_SIZE.
> >
> > Also kill a copy&pasted spurious space in both functions while at it.
> >
> > v2: As suggested by Andrew Morton, add a multipage parameter to both
> > functions to avoid the additional branch for the pagemap.c hotpath.
> > My gcc 4.6 here seems to dtrt and indeed reap these branches where not
> > needed.
> >
>
> I don't think this produced a very good result :(
And I halfway expected this mail here ;-)
> > ...
> >
> > -static inline int fault_in_pages_writeable(char __user *uaddr, int size)
> > +static inline int fault_in_pages_writeable(char __user *uaddr, int size,
> > + bool multipage)
> > {
> > int ret;
> > + char __user *end = uaddr + size - 1;
> >
> > if (unlikely(size == 0))
> > return 0;
> > @@ -416,36 +419,46 @@ static inline int fault_in_pages_writeable(char
> > __user *uaddr, int size)
> > * Writing zeroes into userspace here is OK, because we know that if
> > * the zero gets there, we'll be overwriting it.
> > */
> > - ret = __put_user(0, uaddr);
> > - if (ret == 0) {
> > - char __user *end = uaddr + size - 1;
> > + do {
> > + ret = __put_user(0, uaddr);
> > + if (ret != 0)
> > + return ret;
> > + uaddr += PAGE_SIZE;
> > + } while (multipage && uaddr <= end);
> >
> > + if (ret == 0) {
> > /*
> > * If the page was already mapped, this will get a cache miss
> > * for sure, so try to avoid doing it.
> > */
> > - if (((unsigned long)uaddr & PAGE_MASK) !=
> > + if (((unsigned long)uaddr & PAGE_MASK) ==
> > ((unsigned long)end & PAGE_MASK))
> > - ret = __put_user(0, end);
> > + ret = __put_user(0, end);
> > }
> > return ret;
> > }
>
> One effect of this change for the filemap.c callsite is that `uaddr'
> now gets incremented by PAGE_SIZE. That happens to not break anything
> because we then mask `uaddr' with PAGE_MASK, and if gcc were really
> smart, it could remove that addition. But it's a bit ugly.
Yep, gcc is not clever enough to reap the addl on uaddr (and change the
check for 'do we need to fault the 2nd page to' from jne to je again).
I've checked that before submitting - maybe should have mentioned this.
> Ideally the patch would have no effect upon filemap.o size, but with an
> allmodconfig config I'm seeing
>
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 22876 118 7344 30338 7682 mm/filemap.o (before)
> 22925 118 7392 30435 76e3 mm/filemap.o (after)
>
> so we are adding read()/write() overhead, and bss mysteriously got larger.
>
> Can we improve on this? Even if it's some dumb
>
> static inline int fault_in_pages_writeable(char __user *uaddr, int size,
> bool multipage)
> {
> if (multipage) {
> do-this
> } else {
> do-that
> }
> }
>
> the code duplication between do-this and do-that is regrettable, but at
> least it's all in the same place in the same file, so we won't
> accidentally introduce skew later on.
>
> Alternatively, add a separate fault_in_multi_pages_writeable() to
> pagemap.h. I have a bad feeling this is what your original patch did!
>
> (But we *should* be able to make this work! Why did this version of
> the patch go so wrong?)
Well, I couldn't reconcile the non-multipage with the multipage versions
of these functions - at least not without changing them slightly (like
this patch here does). Which is why I've asked you whether I should just
add a new multipage version of these. I personally deem your proposal of
using and if (multipage) with no shared code too ugly. But you've shot at
it a bit, so I've figured that this version here is what you want.
I'll redo this patch by adding _multipage versions of these 2 functions
for i915.
Yours, Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Mail: dan...@ffwll.ch
Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
