From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751670AbcEYVoF (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2016 17:44:05 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f194.google.com ([209.85.192.194]:34095 "EHLO mail-pf0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751043AbcEYVoE (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2016 17:44:04 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 21:43:59 +0000 From: Wei Yang To: Robin Murphy Cc: Wei Yang , 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 Message-ID: <20160525214359.GA4132@vultr.guest> Reply-To: Wei Yang References: <1463798511-4015-1-git-send-email-richard.weiyang@gmail.com> <20160524230655.GA28550@vultr.guest> <57457BCD.7080909@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <57457BCD.7080909@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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 >>>--- >>>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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wei Yang Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/vt-d: reduce extra first level entry in iommu->domains Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 21:43:59 +0000 Message-ID: <20160525214359.GA4132@vultr.guest> References: <1463798511-4015-1-git-send-email-richard.weiyang@gmail.com> <20160524230655.GA28550@vultr.guest> <57457BCD.7080909@arm.com> Reply-To: Wei Yang Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <57457BCD.7080909-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Robin Murphy Cc: iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, dwmw2-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Wei Yang List-Id: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.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 >>>--- >>>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