All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
	Tomasz Figa <tfiga@google.com>,
	linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, srv_heupstream@mediatek.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, youlin.pei@mediatek.com,
	Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org>,
	anan.sun@mediatek.com, chao.hao@mediatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu: Improve the performance for direct_mapping
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 15:19:28 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cbc9763b-aa7e-aea9-2a21-315dfdd2c407@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201120090628.6566-1-yong.wu@mediatek.com>

On 2020-11-20 09:06, Yong Wu wrote:
> Currently direct_mapping always use the smallest pgsize which is SZ_4K
> normally to mapping. This is unnecessary. we could gather the size, and
> call iommu_map then, iommu_map could decide how to map better with the
> just right pgsize.
> 
>  From the original comment, we should take care overlap, otherwise,
> iommu_map may return -EEXIST. In this overlap case, we should map the
> previous region before overlap firstly. then map the left part.
> 
> Each a iommu device will call this direct_mapping when its iommu
> initialize, This patch is effective to improve the boot/initialization
> time especially while it only needs level 1 mapping.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Anan Sun <anan.sun@mediatek.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>
> ---
>   drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
>   1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> index df87c8e825f7..854a8fcb928d 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> @@ -737,6 +737,7 @@ static int iommu_create_device_direct_mappings(struct iommu_group *group,
>   	/* We need to consider overlapping regions for different devices */
>   	list_for_each_entry(entry, &mappings, list) {
>   		dma_addr_t start, end, addr;
> +		size_t unmapped_sz = 0;
>   
>   		if (domain->ops->apply_resv_region)
>   			domain->ops->apply_resv_region(dev, domain, entry);
> @@ -752,10 +753,25 @@ static int iommu_create_device_direct_mappings(struct iommu_group *group,
>   			phys_addr_t phys_addr;
>   
>   			phys_addr = iommu_iova_to_phys(domain, addr);
> -			if (phys_addr)
> +			if (phys_addr == 0) {
> +				unmapped_sz += pg_size; /* Gather the size. */
>   				continue;
> +			}

I guess the reason we need to validate every page is because they may 
already have been legitimately mapped if someone else's reserved region 
overlaps - is it worth explicitly validating that, i.e. bail out if 
something's gone wrong enough that phys_addr != addr?

Other than the naming issue (I agree that map_size is a far, far better 
choice), I don't have any strong opinions about the rest of the 
implementation - I've written enough variations of this pattern to know 
that there's just no "nice" way to do it in C; all you can do is shuffle 
the clunkiness around :)

Robin.

>   
> -			ret = iommu_map(domain, addr, addr, pg_size, entry->prot);
> +			if (unmapped_sz) {
> +				/* Map the region before the overlap. */
> +				ret = iommu_map(domain, start, start,
> +						unmapped_sz, entry->prot);
> +				if (ret)
> +					goto out;
> +				start += unmapped_sz;
> +				unmapped_sz = 0;
> +			}
> +			start += pg_size;
> +		}
> +		if (unmapped_sz) {
> +			ret = iommu_map(domain, start, start, unmapped_sz,
> +					entry->prot);
>   			if (ret)
>   				goto out;
>   		}
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: youlin.pei@mediatek.com, anan.sun@mediatek.com,
	Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org>,
	srv_heupstream@mediatek.com, chao.hao@mediatek.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
	Tomasz Figa <tfiga@google.com>,
	iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu: Improve the performance for direct_mapping
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 15:19:28 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cbc9763b-aa7e-aea9-2a21-315dfdd2c407@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201120090628.6566-1-yong.wu@mediatek.com>

On 2020-11-20 09:06, Yong Wu wrote:
> Currently direct_mapping always use the smallest pgsize which is SZ_4K
> normally to mapping. This is unnecessary. we could gather the size, and
> call iommu_map then, iommu_map could decide how to map better with the
> just right pgsize.
> 
>  From the original comment, we should take care overlap, otherwise,
> iommu_map may return -EEXIST. In this overlap case, we should map the
> previous region before overlap firstly. then map the left part.
> 
> Each a iommu device will call this direct_mapping when its iommu
> initialize, This patch is effective to improve the boot/initialization
> time especially while it only needs level 1 mapping.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Anan Sun <anan.sun@mediatek.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>
> ---
>   drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
>   1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> index df87c8e825f7..854a8fcb928d 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> @@ -737,6 +737,7 @@ static int iommu_create_device_direct_mappings(struct iommu_group *group,
>   	/* We need to consider overlapping regions for different devices */
>   	list_for_each_entry(entry, &mappings, list) {
>   		dma_addr_t start, end, addr;
> +		size_t unmapped_sz = 0;
>   
>   		if (domain->ops->apply_resv_region)
>   			domain->ops->apply_resv_region(dev, domain, entry);
> @@ -752,10 +753,25 @@ static int iommu_create_device_direct_mappings(struct iommu_group *group,
>   			phys_addr_t phys_addr;
>   
>   			phys_addr = iommu_iova_to_phys(domain, addr);
> -			if (phys_addr)
> +			if (phys_addr == 0) {
> +				unmapped_sz += pg_size; /* Gather the size. */
>   				continue;
> +			}

I guess the reason we need to validate every page is because they may 
already have been legitimately mapped if someone else's reserved region 
overlaps - is it worth explicitly validating that, i.e. bail out if 
something's gone wrong enough that phys_addr != addr?

Other than the naming issue (I agree that map_size is a far, far better 
choice), I don't have any strong opinions about the rest of the 
implementation - I've written enough variations of this pattern to know 
that there's just no "nice" way to do it in C; all you can do is shuffle 
the clunkiness around :)

Robin.

>   
> -			ret = iommu_map(domain, addr, addr, pg_size, entry->prot);
> +			if (unmapped_sz) {
> +				/* Map the region before the overlap. */
> +				ret = iommu_map(domain, start, start,
> +						unmapped_sz, entry->prot);
> +				if (ret)
> +					goto out;
> +				start += unmapped_sz;
> +				unmapped_sz = 0;
> +			}
> +			start += pg_size;
> +		}
> +		if (unmapped_sz) {
> +			ret = iommu_map(domain, start, start, unmapped_sz,
> +					entry->prot);
>   			if (ret)
>   				goto out;
>   		}
> 
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: youlin.pei@mediatek.com, anan.sun@mediatek.com,
	Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org>,
	srv_heupstream@mediatek.com, chao.hao@mediatek.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
	Tomasz Figa <tfiga@google.com>,
	iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu: Improve the performance for direct_mapping
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 15:19:28 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cbc9763b-aa7e-aea9-2a21-315dfdd2c407@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201120090628.6566-1-yong.wu@mediatek.com>

On 2020-11-20 09:06, Yong Wu wrote:
> Currently direct_mapping always use the smallest pgsize which is SZ_4K
> normally to mapping. This is unnecessary. we could gather the size, and
> call iommu_map then, iommu_map could decide how to map better with the
> just right pgsize.
> 
>  From the original comment, we should take care overlap, otherwise,
> iommu_map may return -EEXIST. In this overlap case, we should map the
> previous region before overlap firstly. then map the left part.
> 
> Each a iommu device will call this direct_mapping when its iommu
> initialize, This patch is effective to improve the boot/initialization
> time especially while it only needs level 1 mapping.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Anan Sun <anan.sun@mediatek.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>
> ---
>   drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
>   1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> index df87c8e825f7..854a8fcb928d 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> @@ -737,6 +737,7 @@ static int iommu_create_device_direct_mappings(struct iommu_group *group,
>   	/* We need to consider overlapping regions for different devices */
>   	list_for_each_entry(entry, &mappings, list) {
>   		dma_addr_t start, end, addr;
> +		size_t unmapped_sz = 0;
>   
>   		if (domain->ops->apply_resv_region)
>   			domain->ops->apply_resv_region(dev, domain, entry);
> @@ -752,10 +753,25 @@ static int iommu_create_device_direct_mappings(struct iommu_group *group,
>   			phys_addr_t phys_addr;
>   
>   			phys_addr = iommu_iova_to_phys(domain, addr);
> -			if (phys_addr)
> +			if (phys_addr == 0) {
> +				unmapped_sz += pg_size; /* Gather the size. */
>   				continue;
> +			}

I guess the reason we need to validate every page is because they may 
already have been legitimately mapped if someone else's reserved region 
overlaps - is it worth explicitly validating that, i.e. bail out if 
something's gone wrong enough that phys_addr != addr?

Other than the naming issue (I agree that map_size is a far, far better 
choice), I don't have any strong opinions about the rest of the 
implementation - I've written enough variations of this pattern to know 
that there's just no "nice" way to do it in C; all you can do is shuffle 
the clunkiness around :)

Robin.

>   
> -			ret = iommu_map(domain, addr, addr, pg_size, entry->prot);
> +			if (unmapped_sz) {
> +				/* Map the region before the overlap. */
> +				ret = iommu_map(domain, start, start,
> +						unmapped_sz, entry->prot);
> +				if (ret)
> +					goto out;
> +				start += unmapped_sz;
> +				unmapped_sz = 0;
> +			}
> +			start += pg_size;
> +		}
> +		if (unmapped_sz) {
> +			ret = iommu_map(domain, start, start, unmapped_sz,
> +					entry->prot);
>   			if (ret)
>   				goto out;
>   		}
> 

_______________________________________________
Linux-mediatek mailing list
Linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: youlin.pei@mediatek.com, anan.sun@mediatek.com,
	Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org>,
	srv_heupstream@mediatek.com, chao.hao@mediatek.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
	Tomasz Figa <tfiga@google.com>,
	iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu: Improve the performance for direct_mapping
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 15:19:28 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cbc9763b-aa7e-aea9-2a21-315dfdd2c407@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201120090628.6566-1-yong.wu@mediatek.com>

On 2020-11-20 09:06, Yong Wu wrote:
> Currently direct_mapping always use the smallest pgsize which is SZ_4K
> normally to mapping. This is unnecessary. we could gather the size, and
> call iommu_map then, iommu_map could decide how to map better with the
> just right pgsize.
> 
>  From the original comment, we should take care overlap, otherwise,
> iommu_map may return -EEXIST. In this overlap case, we should map the
> previous region before overlap firstly. then map the left part.
> 
> Each a iommu device will call this direct_mapping when its iommu
> initialize, This patch is effective to improve the boot/initialization
> time especially while it only needs level 1 mapping.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Anan Sun <anan.sun@mediatek.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com>
> ---
>   drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
>   1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> index df87c8e825f7..854a8fcb928d 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> @@ -737,6 +737,7 @@ static int iommu_create_device_direct_mappings(struct iommu_group *group,
>   	/* We need to consider overlapping regions for different devices */
>   	list_for_each_entry(entry, &mappings, list) {
>   		dma_addr_t start, end, addr;
> +		size_t unmapped_sz = 0;
>   
>   		if (domain->ops->apply_resv_region)
>   			domain->ops->apply_resv_region(dev, domain, entry);
> @@ -752,10 +753,25 @@ static int iommu_create_device_direct_mappings(struct iommu_group *group,
>   			phys_addr_t phys_addr;
>   
>   			phys_addr = iommu_iova_to_phys(domain, addr);
> -			if (phys_addr)
> +			if (phys_addr == 0) {
> +				unmapped_sz += pg_size; /* Gather the size. */
>   				continue;
> +			}

I guess the reason we need to validate every page is because they may 
already have been legitimately mapped if someone else's reserved region 
overlaps - is it worth explicitly validating that, i.e. bail out if 
something's gone wrong enough that phys_addr != addr?

Other than the naming issue (I agree that map_size is a far, far better 
choice), I don't have any strong opinions about the rest of the 
implementation - I've written enough variations of this pattern to know 
that there's just no "nice" way to do it in C; all you can do is shuffle 
the clunkiness around :)

Robin.

>   
> -			ret = iommu_map(domain, addr, addr, pg_size, entry->prot);
> +			if (unmapped_sz) {
> +				/* Map the region before the overlap. */
> +				ret = iommu_map(domain, start, start,
> +						unmapped_sz, entry->prot);
> +				if (ret)
> +					goto out;
> +				start += unmapped_sz;
> +				unmapped_sz = 0;
> +			}
> +			start += pg_size;
> +		}
> +		if (unmapped_sz) {
> +			ret = iommu_map(domain, start, start, unmapped_sz,
> +					entry->prot);
>   			if (ret)
>   				goto out;
>   		}
> 

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-11-26 15:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-20  9:06 [PATCH] iommu: Improve the performance for direct_mapping Yong Wu
2020-11-20  9:06 ` Yong Wu
2020-11-20  9:06 ` Yong Wu
2020-11-20  9:06 ` Yong Wu
2020-11-23 12:32 ` Will Deacon
2020-11-23 12:32   ` Will Deacon
2020-11-23 12:32   ` Will Deacon
2020-11-23 12:32   ` Will Deacon
2020-11-24  9:24   ` Yong Wu
2020-11-24  9:24     ` Yong Wu
2020-11-24  9:24     ` Yong Wu
2020-11-24  9:24     ` Yong Wu
2020-11-24 11:05     ` Will Deacon
2020-11-24 11:05       ` Will Deacon
2020-11-24 11:05       ` Will Deacon
2020-11-24 11:05       ` Will Deacon
2020-11-25 11:03       ` Yong Wu
2020-11-25 11:03         ` Yong Wu
2020-11-25 11:03         ` Yong Wu
2020-11-25 11:03         ` Yong Wu
2020-11-25 11:13         ` Will Deacon
2020-11-25 11:13           ` Will Deacon
2020-11-25 11:13           ` Will Deacon
2020-11-25 11:13           ` Will Deacon
2020-11-26 15:19 ` Robin Murphy [this message]
2020-11-26 15:19   ` Robin Murphy
2020-11-26 15:19   ` Robin Murphy
2020-11-26 15:19   ` Robin Murphy
2020-11-27  6:21   ` Yong Wu
2020-11-27  6:21     ` Yong Wu
2020-11-27  6:21     ` Yong Wu
2020-11-27  6:21     ` Yong Wu

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=cbc9763b-aa7e-aea9-2a21-315dfdd2c407@arm.com \
    --to=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=anan.sun@mediatek.com \
    --cc=chao.hao@mediatek.com \
    --cc=drinkcat@chromium.org \
    --cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=joro@8bytes.org \
    --cc=krzk@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=matthias.bgg@gmail.com \
    --cc=srv_heupstream@mediatek.com \
    --cc=tfiga@google.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=yong.wu@mediatek.com \
    --cc=youlin.pei@mediatek.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: link
Be 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.