On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 01:55:20PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> When looking at simple ioctls coupled with conveniently small user
> parameters, the overhead of the syscall and drm_ioctl() present large
> low hanging fruit. Profiling trivial microbenchmarks around
> i915_gem_busy_ioctl, the low hanging fruit comprises of the call to
> copy_user(). Those calls are only inlined by the macro where the
> constant is known at compile-time, but the ioctl argument size depends
> on the ioctl number. To help the compiler, explicitly add switches for
> the small sizes that expand to simple moves to/from user. Doing the
> multiple inlines does add significant code bloat, so it is very
> debatable as to its value. Back to the trivial, but frequently used,
> example of i915_gem_busy_ioctl() on a Broadwell avoiding the call gives
> us a 15-25% improvement:
>
> before after
> single 100.173ns 84.496ns
> parallel (x4) 204.275ns 152.957ns
>
> On a baby Broxton nuc:
>
> before after
> single 245.355ns 199.477ns
> parallel (x2) 280.892ns 232.726ns
>
> Looking at the cost distribution by moving an equivalent switch into
> arch/x86/lib/usercopy, the overhead to the copy user is split almost
> equally between the function call and the actual copy itself. It seems
> copy_user_enhanced_fast_string simply is not that good at small (single
> register) copies. Something as simple as
>
> @@ -28,6 +28,9 @@ copy_user_generic(void *to, const void *from, unsigned len)
> {
> unsigned ret;
>
> + if (len <= 16)
> + return copy_user_generic_unrolled(to, from, len);
>
> is enough to speed up i915_gem_busy_ioctl() by 10% :|
>
> Note that this overhead may entirely be x86 specific.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> + if (in_size) {
> + if (unlikely(!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, arg, in_size)))
> + goto err_invalid_user;
> +
> + switch (in_size) {
> + case 4:
> + if (unlikely(__copy_from_user(kdata, (void __user *)arg,
> + 4)))
> + goto err_invalid_user;
> + break;
> + case 8:
> + if (unlikely(__copy_from_user(kdata, (void __user *)arg,
> + 8)))
> + goto err_invalid_user;
> + break;
> + case 16:
> + if (unlikely(__copy_from_user(kdata, (void __user *)arg,
> + 16)))
> + goto err_invalid_user;
> + break;
For example, currently x86-32 only converts case 4 above. It could
trivially do case 8 as well, but by case 16 it may as well use the
function call to its loop in assembly. And currently x86-32 has no
optimisations for fixed sized puts.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
