From: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>, dwmw2@infradead.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/vt-d: reduce extra first level entry in iommu->domains Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 21:43:59 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20160525214359.GA4132@vultr.guest> (raw) In-Reply-To: <57457BCD.7080909@arm.com> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:17:49AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: >On 25/05/16 00:06, Wei Yang wrote: >>Hi, Joerg >> >>Not sure whether you think this calculation is correct. >> >>If I missed something for this " + 1" in your formula, I am glad to hear your >>explanation. So that I could learn something from you :-) > >I'm not familiar enough with this aspect of the driver to confirm whether the >change is appropriate or not, but it does seem worth noting that using >DIV_ROUND_UP would be an even neater approach. > Hi, Robin, Thanks for your comment. Yes, I agree DIV_ROUND_UP would make the code more easy to read. I have thought about using DIV_ROUND_UP, while from the definition DIV_ROUND_UP use operation "/", and ALIGN use bit operation. So the change in my patch chooses the second one and tries to keep the efficiency. >Robin. > >>Have a good day~ >> >>On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 02:41:51AM +0000, Wei Yang wrote: >>>In commit <8bf478163e69> ("iommu/vt-d: Split up iommu->domains array"), it >>>it splits iommu->domains in two levels. Each first level contains 256 >>>entries of second level. In case of the ndomains is exact a multiple of >>>256, it would have one more extra first level entry for current >>>implementation. >>> >>>This patch refines this calculation to reduce the extra first level entry. >>> >>>Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> >>>--- >>>drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c | 4 ++-- >>>1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>>diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c >>>index e3061d3..2204ca4 100644 >>>--- a/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c >>>+++ b/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c >>>@@ -1634,7 +1634,7 @@ static int iommu_init_domains(struct intel_iommu *iommu) >>> return -ENOMEM; >>> } >>> >>>- size = ((ndomains >> 8) + 1) * sizeof(struct dmar_domain **); >>>+ size = (ALIGN(ndomains, 256) >> 8) * sizeof(struct dmar_domain **); >>> iommu->domains = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL); >>> >>> if (iommu->domains) { >>>@@ -1699,7 +1699,7 @@ static void disable_dmar_iommu(struct intel_iommu *iommu) >>>static void free_dmar_iommu(struct intel_iommu *iommu) >>>{ >>> if ((iommu->domains) && (iommu->domain_ids)) { >>>- int elems = (cap_ndoms(iommu->cap) >> 8) + 1; >>>+ int elems = ALIGN(cap_ndoms(iommu->cap), 256) >> 8; >>> int i; >>> >>> for (i = 0; i < elems; i++) >>>-- >>>1.7.9.5 >> -- Wei Yang Help you, Help me
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> Cc: iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, dwmw2-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Wei Yang <richard.weiyang-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/vt-d: reduce extra first level entry in iommu->domains Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 21:43:59 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20160525214359.GA4132@vultr.guest> (raw) In-Reply-To: <57457BCD.7080909-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:17:49AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: >On 25/05/16 00:06, Wei Yang wrote: >>Hi, Joerg >> >>Not sure whether you think this calculation is correct. >> >>If I missed something for this " + 1" in your formula, I am glad to hear your >>explanation. So that I could learn something from you :-) > >I'm not familiar enough with this aspect of the driver to confirm whether the >change is appropriate or not, but it does seem worth noting that using >DIV_ROUND_UP would be an even neater approach. > Hi, Robin, Thanks for your comment. Yes, I agree DIV_ROUND_UP would make the code more easy to read. I have thought about using DIV_ROUND_UP, while from the definition DIV_ROUND_UP use operation "/", and ALIGN use bit operation. So the change in my patch chooses the second one and tries to keep the efficiency. >Robin. > >>Have a good day~ >> >>On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 02:41:51AM +0000, Wei Yang wrote: >>>In commit <8bf478163e69> ("iommu/vt-d: Split up iommu->domains array"), it >>>it splits iommu->domains in two levels. Each first level contains 256 >>>entries of second level. In case of the ndomains is exact a multiple of >>>256, it would have one more extra first level entry for current >>>implementation. >>> >>>This patch refines this calculation to reduce the extra first level entry. >>> >>>Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> >>>--- >>>drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c | 4 ++-- >>>1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>>diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c >>>index e3061d3..2204ca4 100644 >>>--- a/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c >>>+++ b/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c >>>@@ -1634,7 +1634,7 @@ static int iommu_init_domains(struct intel_iommu *iommu) >>> return -ENOMEM; >>> } >>> >>>- size = ((ndomains >> 8) + 1) * sizeof(struct dmar_domain **); >>>+ size = (ALIGN(ndomains, 256) >> 8) * sizeof(struct dmar_domain **); >>> iommu->domains = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL); >>> >>> if (iommu->domains) { >>>@@ -1699,7 +1699,7 @@ static void disable_dmar_iommu(struct intel_iommu *iommu) >>>static void free_dmar_iommu(struct intel_iommu *iommu) >>>{ >>> if ((iommu->domains) && (iommu->domain_ids)) { >>>- int elems = (cap_ndoms(iommu->cap) >> 8) + 1; >>>+ int elems = ALIGN(cap_ndoms(iommu->cap), 256) >> 8; >>> int i; >>> >>> for (i = 0; i < elems; i++) >>>-- >>>1.7.9.5 >> -- Wei Yang Help you, Help me
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-25 21:44 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2016-05-21 2:41 [PATCH] iommu/vt-d: reduce extra first level entry in iommu->domains Wei Yang 2016-05-21 2:41 ` Wei Yang 2016-05-24 23:06 ` Wei Yang 2016-05-24 23:06 ` Wei Yang 2016-05-25 10:17 ` Robin Murphy 2016-05-25 21:43 ` Wei Yang [this message] 2016-05-25 21:43 ` Wei Yang 2016-05-26 10:11 ` Robin Murphy 2016-05-26 22:34 ` Wei Yang 2016-06-15 11:39 ` Joerg Roedel 2016-06-15 11:39 ` Joerg Roedel 2016-06-16 22:51 ` Wei Yang
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 \ --in-reply-to=20160525214359.GA4132@vultr.guest \ --to=richard.weiyang@gmail.com \ --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \ --cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \ /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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.