lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/3] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: put off the execution of TLBI* to reduce lock confliction
From
Date


On 2017/10/18 20:58, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Thunder,
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 09:00:36PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> Because all TLBI commands should be followed by a SYNC command, to make
>> sure that it has been completely finished. So we can just add the TLBI
>> commands into the queue, and put off the execution until meet SYNC or
>> other commands. To prevent the followed SYNC command waiting for a long
>> time because of too many commands have been delayed, restrict the max
>> delayed number.
>>
>> According to my test, I got the same performance data as I replaced writel
>> with writel_relaxed in queue_inc_prod.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> If we want to go down the route of explicit command batching, I'd much
> rather do it by implementing the iotlb_range_add callback in the driver,
> and have a fixed-length array of batched ranges on the domain. We could
I think even if iotlb_range_add callback is implemented, this patch is still valuable. The main purpose
of this patch is to reduce dsb operation. So in the scenario with iotlb_range_add implemented:
.iotlb_range_add:
spin_lock_irqsave(&smmu->cmdq.lock, flags);
...
add tlbi range-1 to cmq-queue
...
add tlbi range-n to cmq-queue //n
dsb
...
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&smmu->cmdq.lock, flags);

.iotlb_sync
spin_lock_irqsave(&smmu->cmdq.lock, flags);
...
add cmd_sync to cmq-queue
dsb
...
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&smmu->cmdq.lock, flags);

Although iotlb_range_add can reduce n-1 dsb operations, but there are still 1 left. If n is not large enough,
this patch is helpful.


> potentially toggle this function pointer based on the compatible string too,
> if it shows only to benefit some systems.
[
On 2017/9/19 12:31, Nate Watterson wrote:
I tested these (2) patches on QDF2400 hardware and saw performance
improvements in line with those I reported when testing the original
series.
]

I'm not sure whether this patch can improve performance on QDF2400, because there are two patches. But at least
it seems harmless, maybe the other hardware platforms are the same.

>
> Will
>
> .
>

--
Thanks!
BestRegards

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-22 17:19    [W:0.085 / U:3.464 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site