Re: [PATCH] MMIO should have more priority then IO

From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Ajay Kaher <akaher@vmware.com>
Cc: bhelgaas@google.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
	bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org,
	hpa@zytor.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, namit@vmware.com, srivatsab@vmware.com,
	srivatsa@csail.mit.edu, amakhalov@vmware.com, anishs@vmware.com,
	vsirnapalli@vmware.com, er.ajay.kaher@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MMIO should have more priority then IO
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 08:12:41 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YrvtWVqj/w8V5nIJ@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1656433761-9163-1-git-send-email-akaher@vmware.com>

On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 09:59:21PM +0530, Ajay Kaher wrote:
> Port IO instructions (PIO) are less efficient than MMIO (memory
> mapped I/O). They require twice as many PCI accesses and PIO
> instructions are serializing. As a result, MMIO should be preferred
> when possible over PIO.
> 
> Bare metal test result
> 1 million reads using raw_pci_read() took:
> PIO: 0.433153 Sec.
> MMIO: 0.268792 Sec.
> 
> Virtual Machine test result
> 1 hundred thousand reads using raw_pci_read() took:
> PIO: 12.809 Sec.
> MMIO: took 8.517 Sec.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ajay Kaher <akaher@vmware.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/pci/common.c          |  8 ++++----
>  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/common.c b/arch/x86/pci/common.c
> index 3507f456f..0b3383d9c 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/pci/common.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/common.c
> @@ -40,20 +40,20 @@ const struct pci_raw_ops *__read_mostly raw_pci_ext_ops;
>  int raw_pci_read(unsigned int domain, unsigned int bus, unsigned int devfn,
>  						int reg, int len, u32 *val)
>  {
> +	if (raw_pci_ext_ops)
> +		return raw_pci_ext_ops->read(domain, bus, devfn, reg, len, val);
>  	if (domain == 0 && reg < 256 && raw_pci_ops)
>  		return raw_pci_ops->read(domain, bus, devfn, reg, len, val);
> -	if (raw_pci_ext_ops)
> -		return raw_pci_ext_ops->read(domain, bus, devfn, reg, len, val);
>  	return -EINVAL;
>  }
>  
>  int raw_pci_write(unsigned int domain, unsigned int bus, unsigned int devfn,
>  						int reg, int len, u32 val)
>  {
> +	if (raw_pci_ext_ops)
> +		return raw_pci_ext_ops->write(domain, bus, devfn, reg, len, val);
>  	if (domain == 0 && reg < 256 && raw_pci_ops)
>  		return raw_pci_ops->write(domain, bus, devfn, reg, len, val);
> -	if (raw_pci_ext_ops)
> -		return raw_pci_ext_ops->write(domain, bus, devfn, reg, len, val);
>  	return -EINVAL;
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 2.30.0
> 

<formletter>

This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
stable kernel tree.  Please read:
    https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
for how to do this properly.

</formletter>