From: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>, <joro@8bytes.org>
Cc: Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
vjitta@codeaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] iommu/iova: Improve restart logic
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 15:55:23 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c1181e3b-cdf3-c658-1c57-8ec86d034f4b@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <076b3484d1e5057b95d8c387c894bd6ad2514043.1614962123.git.robin.murphy@arm.com>
On 05/03/2021 16:35, Robin Murphy wrote:
Hi Robin,
> When restarting after searching below the cached node fails, resetting
> the start point to the anchor node is often overly pessimistic. If
> allocations are made with mixed limits - particularly in the case of the
> opportunistic 32-bit allocation for PCI devices - this could mean
> significant time wasted walking through the whole populated upper range
> just to reach the initial limit.
Right
> We can improve on that by implementing
> a proper tree traversal to find the first node above the relevant limit,
> and set the exact start point.
Thanks for this. However, as mentioned in the other thread, this does
not help our performance regression Re: commit 4e89dce72521.
And mentioning this "retry" approach again, in case it was missed, from
my experiment on the affected HW, it also has generally a dreadfully low
success rate - less than 1% for the 32b range retry. Retry rate is about
20%. So I am saying from this 20%, less than 1% of those succeed.
Failing faster sounds key.
Thanks,
John
>
> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
> ---
> drivers/iommu/iova.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iova.c b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
> index c28003e1d2ee..471c48dd71e7 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/iova.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
> @@ -154,6 +154,43 @@ __cached_rbnode_delete_update(struct iova_domain *iovad, struct iova *free)
> iovad->cached_node = rb_next(&free->node);
> }
>
> +static struct rb_node *iova_find_limit(struct iova_domain *iovad, unsigned long limit_pfn)
> +{
> + struct rb_node *node, *next;
> + /*
> + * Ideally what we'd like to judge here is whether limit_pfn is close
> + * enough to the highest-allocated IOVA that starting the allocation
> + * walk from the anchor node will be quicker than this initial work to
> + * find an exact starting point (especially if that ends up being the
> + * anchor node anyway). This is an incredibly crude approximation which
> + * only really helps the most likely case, but is at least trivially easy.
> + */
> + if (limit_pfn > iovad->dma_32bit_pfn)
> + return &iovad->anchor.node;
> +
> + node = iovad->rbroot.rb_node;
> + while (to_iova(node)->pfn_hi < limit_pfn)
> + node = node->rb_right;
> +
> +search_left:
> + while (node->rb_left && to_iova(node->rb_left)->pfn_lo >= limit_pfn)
> + node = node->rb_left;
> +
> + if (!node->rb_left)
> + return node;
> +
> + next = node->rb_left;
> + while (next->rb_right) {
> + next = next->rb_right;
> + if (to_iova(next)->pfn_lo >= limit_pfn) {
> + node = next;
> + goto search_left;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return node;
> +}
> +
> /* Insert the iova into domain rbtree by holding writer lock */
> static void
> iova_insert_rbtree(struct rb_root *root, struct iova *iova,
> @@ -219,7 +256,7 @@ static int __alloc_and_insert_iova_range(struct iova_domain *iovad,
> if (low_pfn == iovad->start_pfn && retry_pfn < limit_pfn) {
> high_pfn = limit_pfn;
> low_pfn = retry_pfn;
> - curr = &iovad->anchor.node;
> + curr = iova_find_limit(iovad, limit_pfn);
> curr_iova = to_iova(curr);
> goto retry;
> }
>
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-09 15:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-05 16:35 [PATCH 1/2] iommu/iova: Add rbtree entry helper Robin Murphy
2021-03-05 16:35 ` [PATCH 2/2] iommu/iova: Improve restart logic Robin Murphy
2021-03-09 15:55 ` John Garry [this message]
[not found] ` <d8e80756-a628-3a0d-77ac-1e9df734f1c5@huawei.com>
2021-03-18 11:38 ` John Garry
2021-03-18 13:20 ` Robin Murphy
2021-03-18 16:07 ` John Garry
2021-03-18 10:01 ` [PATCH 1/2] iommu/iova: Add rbtree entry helper Joerg Roedel
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=c1181e3b-cdf3-c658-1c57-8ec86d034f4b@huawei.com \
--to=john.garry@huawei.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=vjitta@codeaurora.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).