Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Improve cmdq lock efficiency

[John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>]

On 21/09/2020 14:58, John Garry wrote:
> 
>> Could you try to adapt the hacks I sent before,
>> please? I know they weren't quite right (I have no hardware to test 
>> on

Could the ARM Rev C FVP be used to at least functionally test? Can't 
seem to access myself, even though it's gratis...

), but
>> the basic idea is to fall back to a spinlock if the cmpxchg() fails. The
>> queueing in the spinlock implementation should avoid the contention.
> 

So I modified that suggested change to get it functioning, and it looks 
like this:

diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c 
b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
index 7196207be7ea..f907b7c233a2 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
@@ -560,6 +560,7 @@ struct arm_smmu_cmdq {
  	atomic_long_t			*valid_map;
  	atomic_t			owner_prod;
  	atomic_t			lock;
+	spinlock_t			slock;
  };

  struct arm_smmu_cmdq_batch {
@@ -1378,7 +1379,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist(struct 
arm_smmu_device *smmu,
  	u64 cmd_sync[CMDQ_ENT_DWORDS];
  	u32 prod;
  	unsigned long flags;
-	bool owner;
+	bool owner, locked = false;
  	struct arm_smmu_cmdq *cmdq = &smmu->cmdq;
  	struct arm_smmu_ll_queue llq = {
  		.max_n_shift = cmdq->q.llq.max_n_shift,
@@ -1387,26 +1388,42 @@ static int arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist(struct 
arm_smmu_device *smmu,

  	/* 1. Allocate some space in the queue */
  	local_irq_save(flags);
-	llq.val = READ_ONCE(cmdq->q.llq.val);
  	do {
  		u64 old;

-		while (!queue_has_space(&llq, n + sync)) {
+		llq.val = READ_ONCE(cmdq->q.llq.val);
+
+		if (queue_has_space(&llq, n + sync))
+			goto try_cas;
+
+		if (locked) {
+			spin_unlock(&cmdq->slock);
+			locked = 0; // added
+		}
+
+		do {
  			local_irq_restore(flags);
  			if (arm_smmu_cmdq_poll_until_not_full(smmu, &llq))
  				dev_err_ratelimited(smmu->dev, "CMDQ timeout\n");
  			local_irq_save(flags);
-		}
+		} while (!queue_has_space(&llq, n + sync));

+try_cas:
  		head.cons = llq.cons;
  		head.prod = queue_inc_prod_n(&llq, n + sync) |
  					     CMDQ_PROD_OWNED_FLAG;

  		old = cmpxchg_relaxed(&cmdq->q.llq.val, llq.val, head.val);
-		if (old == llq.val)
+		if (old == llq.val) { // was if (old != llq.val)
+			if (locked)   //           break;
+				spin_unlock(&cmdq->slock);//
  			break;//
+		}//

-		llq.val = old;
+		if (!locked) {
+			spin_lock(&cmdq->slock);
+			locked = true;
+		}
  	} while (1);
  	owner = !(llq.prod & CMDQ_PROD_OWNED_FLAG);
  	head.prod &= ~CMDQ_PROD_OWNED_FLAG;
@@ -3192,6 +3209,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_cmdq_init(struct 
arm_smmu_device *smmu)

  	atomic_set(&cmdq->owner_prod, 0);
  	atomic_set(&cmdq->lock, 0);
+	spin_lock_init(&cmdq->slock);

  	bitmap = (atomic_long_t *)bitmap_zalloc(nents, GFP_KERNEL);
  	if (!bitmap) {
-- 
2.26.2

I annotated my mods with comments. Maybe those mods would not be as you 
intend.

So I'm not sure that we solve the problem of a new CPU coming along and 
trying the cmpxchg immediately, while another CPU has the slock and will 
try the cmpxchg also.

Anyway, the results are a bit mixed depending on the CPU count, but 
generally positive compared to mainline:

CPUs		2	4	8	16	32	64	96
v5.9-rc1	453K	409K	295K	157K	33.6K	9.5K	5.2K
Will's change	459K	414K	281K	131K	44K	15.5K	8.6K
$subject change	481K	406K	305K	190K	81K	30K	18.7K

(Unit is DMA map+unmap per CPU per second, using test harness. Higher is 
better.)

Please let me know of any way to progress.

Thanks,
John