From: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
linux-clk <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
x86 <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] clk: Convert managed get functions to devm_add_action API
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 17:05:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191212170537.GL25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6a647c20-c2fa-f14c-256d-6516d0ad03b0@free.fr>
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 05:59:04PM +0100, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> On 12/12/2019 15:47, Robin Murphy wrote:
>
> > On 12/12/2019 1:53 pm, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/12/2019 23:28, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 05:17:28PM +0100, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> What is the rationale for the devm_add_action API?
> >>>
> >>> For one-off and maybe complex unwind actions in drivers that wish to use
> >>> devm API (as mixing devm and manual release is verboten). Also is often
> >>> used when some core subsystem does not provide enough devm APIs.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the insight, Dmitry. Thanks to Robin too.
> >>
> >> This is what I understand so far:
> >>
> >> devm_add_action() is nice because it hides/factorizes the complexity
> >> of the devres API, but it incurs a small storage overhead of one
> >> pointer per call, which makes it unfit for frequently used actions,
> >> such as clk_get.
> >>
> >> Is that correct?
> >>
> >> My question is: why not design the API without the small overhead?
> >
> > Probably because on most architectures, ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN is at
> > least as big as two pointers anyway, so this "overhead" should mostly be
> > free in practice. Plus the devres API is almost entirely about being
> > able to write simple robust code, rather than absolute efficiency - I
> > mean, struct devres itself is already 5 pointers large at the absolute
> > minimum ;)
>
> (3 pointers: 1 list_head + 1 function pointer)
>
> I'm confused. The first patch was criticized for potentially adding
> an extra pointer for every devm_clk_get (e.g. 800 bytes on a 64-bit
> platform with 100 clocks).
>
> Let's see. On arm64, ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN is 128.
>
> So basically, a struct devres looks like this on arm64:
>
> list_head.next
> list_head.prev
> dr_release_t
> .
> .
> .
> 104 bytes of padding
> .
> .
> .
> data (flexible array)
> .
> .
> .
> padding up to 256 bytes
>
>
> Basically, on arm64, every struct devres occupies 256 bytes, most of it
> (typically 104 + 112 = 216) wasted as padding.
>
> Hmmm, given how many devm stuff goes on in a modern platform, there
> might be large savings to be had...
>
> Assuming 10,000 calls to devres_alloc_node(), we would be wasting ~2 MB
> of RAM. Not sure it's worth trying to save that?
>
> $ git grep '#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN'
> arch/arc/include/asm/cache.h:#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN SMP_CACHE_BYTES
> arch/arm/include/asm/cache.h:#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN L1_CACHE_BYTES
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h:#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN (128)
> arch/c6x/include/asm/cache.h:#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN L1_CACHE_BYTES
> arch/csky/include/asm/cache.h:#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN L1_CACHE_BYTES
> arch/hexagon/include/asm/cache.h:#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN L1_CACHE_BYTES
> arch/m68k/include/asm/cache.h:#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN L1_CACHE_BYTES
> arch/microblaze/include/asm/page.h:#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN L1_CACHE_BYTES
> arch/mips/include/asm/mach-generic/kmalloc.h:#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN 128
> arch/mips/include/asm/mach-ip32/kmalloc.h:#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN 32
> arch/mips/include/asm/mach-ip32/kmalloc.h:#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN 128
> arch/mips/include/asm/mach-tx49xx/kmalloc.h:#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN L1_CACHE_BYTES
> arch/nds32/include/asm/cache.h:#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN L1_CACHE_BYTES
> arch/nios2/include/asm/cache.h:#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN L1_CACHE_BYTES
> arch/parisc/include/asm/cache.h:#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN L1_CACHE_BYTES
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/page_32.h:#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN L1_CACHE_BYTES
> arch/sh/include/asm/page.h:#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN L1_CACHE_BYTES
> arch/unicore32/include/asm/cache.h:#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN L1_CACHE_BYTES
> arch/xtensa/include/asm/cache.h:#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN L1_CACHE_BYTES
>
> Hmmm, how does arch/x86 do it?
As I understand it, x86 tends to be fully coherent, so has no there
is not much requirement for DMA to be aligned to cachelines.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-12 17:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-26 16:13 [PATCH v1] clk: Convert managed get functions to devm_add_action API Marc Gonzalez
2019-11-28 18:56 ` Bjorn Andersson
2019-12-02 1:42 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2019-12-02 9:25 ` Marc Gonzalez
2019-12-02 13:51 ` Robin Murphy
2019-12-11 16:17 ` Marc Gonzalez
2019-12-11 22:28 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2019-12-12 13:53 ` Marc Gonzalez
2019-12-12 14:17 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-12-12 14:41 ` Marc Gonzalez
2019-12-12 14:46 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-12-12 15:51 ` Marc Gonzalez
2019-12-12 16:13 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2019-12-12 14:47 ` Robin Murphy
2019-12-12 16:59 ` Marc Gonzalez
2019-12-12 17:05 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin [this message]
2019-12-12 18:15 ` Robin Murphy
2019-12-12 19:10 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2019-12-12 21:08 ` Robin Murphy
2019-12-13 0:16 ` Dmitry Torokhov
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=20191212170537.GL25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk \
--to=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-clk@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr \
--cc=mturquette@baylibre.com \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
--cc=sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).