From: Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Erik Kaneda <erik.kaneda@intel.com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@redhat.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
Bob Moore <robert.moore@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] ACPICA: Preserve memory opregion mappings
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 13:57:02 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200630195702.GV1237914@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0hpe2pB76h=p+E4GpOFrDAP5ZGrreyQ-QVtga=08HQNUA@mail.gmail.com>
On 30 Jun 2020 17:52, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 5:31 PM Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 30 Jun 2020 13:44, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 10:57 PM Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 29 Jun 2020 18:33, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > The ACPICA's strategy with respect to the handling of memory mappings
> > > > > associated with memory operation regions is to avoid mapping the
> > > > > entire region at once which may be problematic at least in principle
> > > > > (for example, it may lead to conflicts with overlapping mappings
> > > > > having different attributes created by drivers). It may also be
> > > > > wasteful, because memory opregions on some systems take up vast
> > > > > chunks of address space while the fields in those regions actually
> > > > > accessed by AML are sparsely distributed.
> > > > >
> > > > > For this reason, a one-page "window" is mapped for a given opregion
> > > > > on the first memory access through it and if that "window" does not
> > > > > cover an address range accessed through that opregion subsequently,
> > > > > it is unmapped and a new "window" is mapped to replace it. Next,
> > > > > if the new "window" is not sufficient to acess memory through the
> > > > > opregion in question in the future, it will be replaced with yet
> > > > > another "window" and so on. That may lead to a suboptimal sequence
> > > > > of memory mapping and unmapping operations, for example if two fields
> > > > > in one opregion separated from each other by a sufficiently wide
> > > > > chunk of unused address space are accessed in an alternating pattern.
> > > > >
> > > > > The situation may still be suboptimal if the deferred unmapping
> > > > > introduced previously is supported by the OS layer. For instance,
> > > > > the alternating memory access pattern mentioned above may produce
> > > > > a relatively long list of mappings to release with substantial
> > > > > duplication among the entries in it, which could be avoided if
> > > > > acpi_ex_system_memory_space_handler() did not release the mapping
> > > > > used by it previously as soon as the current access was not covered
> > > > > by it.
> > > > >
> > > > > In order to improve that, modify acpi_ex_system_memory_space_handler()
> > > > > to preserve all of the memory mappings created by it until the memory
> > > > > regions associated with them go away.
> > > > >
> > > > > Accordingly, update acpi_ev_system_memory_region_setup() to unmap all
> > > > > memory associated with memory opregions that go away.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reported-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/acpi/acpica/evrgnini.c | 14 ++++----
> > > > > drivers/acpi/acpica/exregion.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > > > > include/acpi/actypes.h | 12 +++++--
> > > > > 3 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpica/evrgnini.c b/drivers/acpi/acpica/evrgnini.c
> > > > > index aefc0145e583..89be3ccdad53 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/evrgnini.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/evrgnini.c
> > > > > @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ acpi_ev_system_memory_region_setup(acpi_handle handle,
> > > > > union acpi_operand_object *region_desc =
> > > > > (union acpi_operand_object *)handle;
> > > > > struct acpi_mem_space_context *local_region_context;
> > > > > + struct acpi_mem_mapping *mm;
> > > > >
> > > > > ACPI_FUNCTION_TRACE(ev_system_memory_region_setup);
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -46,13 +47,14 @@ acpi_ev_system_memory_region_setup(acpi_handle handle,
> > > > > local_region_context =
> > > > > (struct acpi_mem_space_context *)*region_context;
> > > > >
> > > > > - /* Delete a cached mapping if present */
> > > > > + /* Delete memory mappings if present */
> > > > >
> > > > > - if (local_region_context->mapped_length) {
> > > > > - acpi_os_unmap_memory(local_region_context->
> > > > > - mapped_logical_address,
> > > > > - local_region_context->
> > > > > - mapped_length);
> > > > > + while (local_region_context->first_mm) {
> > > > > + mm = local_region_context->first_mm;
> > > > > + local_region_context->first_mm = mm->next_mm;
> > > > > + acpi_os_unmap_memory(mm->logical_address,
> > > > > + mm->length);
> > > > > + ACPI_FREE(mm);
> > > > > }
> > > > > ACPI_FREE(local_region_context);
> > > > > *region_context = NULL;
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpica/exregion.c b/drivers/acpi/acpica/exregion.c
> > > > > index d15a66de26c0..fd68f2134804 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/exregion.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/exregion.c
> > > > > @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ acpi_ex_system_memory_space_handler(u32 function,
> > > > > acpi_status status = AE_OK;
> > > > > void *logical_addr_ptr = NULL;
> > > > > struct acpi_mem_space_context *mem_info = region_context;
> > > > > + struct acpi_mem_mapping *mm = mem_info->cur_mm;
> > > > > u32 length;
> > > > > acpi_size map_length;
> > > >
> > > > I think this needs to be:
> > > >
> > > > acpi_size map_length = mem_info->length;
> > > >
> > > > since it now gets used in the ACPI_ERROR() call below.
> > >
> > > No, it's better to print the length value in the message.
> >
> > Yeah, that was the other option.
> >
> > > > I'm getting a "maybe used unitialized" error on compilation.
> > >
> > > Thanks for reporting!
> > >
> > > I've updated the commit in the acpica-osl branch with the fix.
> >
> > Thanks, Rafael.
> >
> > Do you have a generic way of testing this? I can see a way to do it
> > -- timing a call of a method in a dynamically loaded SSDT -- but if
> > you had a test case laying around, I could continue to be lazy :).
>
> I don't check the timing, but instrument the code to see if what
> happens is what is expected.
Ah, okay. Thanks.
> Now, the overhead reduction resulting from this change in Linux is
> quite straightforward: Every time the current mapping doesn't cover
> the request at hand, an unmap is carried out by the original code,
> which involves a linear search through acpi_ioremaps, and which
> generally is (at least a bit) more expensive than the linear search
> through the list of opregion-specific mappings introduced by the
> $subject patch, because quite likely the acpi_ioremaps list holds more
> items. And, of course, if the opregion in question holds many fields
> and they are not covered by one mapping, each of them needs to be
> mapped just once per the opregion life cycle.
Right. What I was debating as a generic test was something to try to
force an OpRegion through mapping and unmapping repeatedly with the
current code to determine a rough average elapsed time. Then, apply
the patch to see what the change does. Granted, a completely synthetic
scenario, and specifically designed to exaggerate the overhead, but
I'm just curious.
--
ciao,
al
-----------------------------------
Al Stone
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.
ahs3@redhat.com
-----------------------------------
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-30 19:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-07 23:39 [PATCH v2] ACPI: Drop rcu usage for MMIO mappings Dan Williams
2020-05-13 8:52 ` [ACPI] 5a91d41f89: BUG:sleeping_function_called_from_invalid_context_at_kernel/locking/mutex.c kernel test robot
2020-06-05 13:32 ` [PATCH v2] ACPI: Drop rcu usage for MMIO mappings Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-05 16:18 ` Dan Williams
2020-06-05 16:21 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-05 16:39 ` Dan Williams
2020-06-05 17:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-05 14:06 ` [RFT][PATCH] ACPI: OSL: Use rwlock instead of RCU for memory management Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-05 17:08 ` Dan Williams
2020-06-06 6:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-08 15:33 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-08 16:29 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-05 19:40 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-06-06 6:48 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-10 12:17 ` [RFT][PATCH 0/3] ACPI: ACPICA / OSL: Avoid unmapping ACPI memory inside of the AML interpreter Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-10 12:20 ` [RFT][PATCH 1/3] ACPICA: Defer unmapping of memory used in memory opregions Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-10 12:21 ` [RFT][PATCH 2/3] ACPICA: Remove unused memory mappings on interpreter exit Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-12 0:12 ` Kaneda, Erik
2020-06-12 12:05 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-13 19:28 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-15 19:06 ` Dan Williams
2020-06-10 12:22 ` [RFT][PATCH 3/3] ACPI: OSL: Define ACPI_OS_MAP_MEMORY_FAST_PATH() Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-13 19:19 ` [RFT][PATCH 0/3] ACPI: ACPICA / OSL: Avoid unmapping ACPI memory inside of the AML interpreter Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-22 13:50 ` [RFT][PATCH v2 0/4] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-22 13:52 ` [RFT][PATCH v2 1/4] ACPICA: Defer unmapping of opregion memory if supported by OS Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-22 13:53 ` [RFT][PATCH v2 2/4] ACPI: OSL: Add support for deferred unmapping of ACPI memory Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-22 14:56 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-06-22 15:27 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-22 15:46 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-06-22 14:01 ` [RFT][PATCH v2 3/4] ACPICA: Preserve memory opregion mappings if supported by OS Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-26 22:53 ` Kaneda, Erik
2020-06-29 13:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-22 14:02 ` [RFT][PATCH v2 4/4] ACPI: OSL: Implement acpi_os_map_memory_fast_path() Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-26 17:28 ` [RFT][PATCH v3 0/4] ACPI: ACPICA / OSL: Avoid unmapping ACPI memory inside of the AML interpreter Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-26 17:31 ` [RFT][PATCH v3 1/4] ACPICA: Take deferred unmapping of memory into account Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-26 17:31 ` [RFT][PATCH v3 2/4] ACPI: OSL: Implement deferred unmapping of ACPI memory Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-26 17:32 ` [RFT][PATCH v3 3/4] ACPICA: Preserve memory opregion mappings if supported by OS Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-26 17:33 ` [RFT][PATCH v3 4/4] ACPI: OSL: Implement acpi_os_map_memory_fast_path() Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-26 18:41 ` [RFT][PATCH v3 0/4] ACPI: ACPICA / OSL: Avoid unmapping ACPI memory inside of the AML interpreter Dan Williams
2020-06-28 17:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-29 20:46 ` Dan Williams
2020-06-30 11:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-29 16:31 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-29 16:33 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] ACPI: OSL: Implement deferred unmapping of ACPI memory Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-29 16:33 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] ACPICA: Preserve memory opregion mappings Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-29 20:57 ` Al Stone
2020-06-30 11:44 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-30 15:31 ` Al Stone
2020-06-30 15:52 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-30 19:57 ` Al Stone [this message]
2020-07-16 19:22 ` Verma, Vishal L
2020-07-19 19:14 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
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=20200630195702.GV1237914@redhat.com \
--to=ahs3@redhat.com \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=erik.kaneda@intel.com \
--cc=ira.weiny@intel.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
--cc=myron.stowe@redhat.com \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=robert.moore@intel.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 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).