lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] iommu/iova: Try harder to allocate from rcache magazine
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 16:00:51 +0200
Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 02:48:41PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > When devices with different DMA masks are using the same domain, or
> > for PCI devices where we usually try a speculative 32-bit
> > allocation first, there is a fair possibility that the top PFN of
> > the rcache stack at any given time may be unsuitable for the lower
> > limit, prompting a fallback to allocating anew from the rbtree.
> > Consequently, we may end up artifically increasing pressure on the
> > 32-bit IOVA space as unused IOVAs accumulate lower down in the
> > rcache stacks, while callers with 32-bit masks also impose
> > unnecessary rbtree overhead.
> >
> > In such cases, let's try a bit harder to satisfy the allocation
> > locally first - scanning the whole stack should still be relatively
> > inexpensive, and even rotating an entry up from the very bottom
> > probably has less overall impact than going to the rbtree.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/iommu/iova.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iova.c b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
> > index 8f8b436afd81..a7af8273fa98 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iommu/iova.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
> > @@ -826,12 +826,25 @@ static bool iova_magazine_empty(struct
> > iova_magazine *mag) static unsigned long iova_magazine_pop(struct
> > iova_magazine *mag, unsigned long limit_pfn)
> > {
> > + int i;
> > + unsigned long pfn;
> > +
> > BUG_ON(iova_magazine_empty(mag));
> >
> > - if (mag->pfns[mag->size - 1] > limit_pfn)
> > - return 0;
> > + /*
> > + * If we can pull a suitable pfn from anywhere in the
> > stack, that's
> > + * still probably preferable to falling back to the rbtree.
> > + */
> > + for (i = mag->size - 1; mag->pfns[i] > limit_pfn; i--)
> > + if (i == 0)
> > + return 0;
> >
> > - return mag->pfns[--mag->size];
> > + pfn = mag->pfns[i];
> > + mag->size--;
> > + for (; i < mag->size; i++)
> > + mag->pfns[i] = mag->pfns[i + 1];
>
> Do we need to preserve the order of the elements on the stack or would
> it also suffice to just copy the top-element to the position we are
> removing?

Ooh, good point - the order is more or less meaningless, and if it *did*
matter then that would imply we couldn't do this anyway. Getting rid of
the second loop makes it even more compelling.

Robin.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-27 18:51    [W:0.145 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site