nvdimm.lists.linux.dev archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH v2] libnvdimm, dimm: Maximize label transfer size
@ 2018-10-01 21:14 Dan Williams
  2018-10-01 21:44 ` Alexander Duyck
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Dan Williams @ 2018-10-01 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-nvdimm; +Cc: Alexander Duyck, linux-kernel

Use kvzalloc() to bypass the arbitrary PAGE_SIZE limit of label transfer
operations. Given the expense of calling into firmware, maximize the
amount of label data we transfer per call to be up to the total label
space if allowed by the firmware, or 256K whichever is smaller.

Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
---
Changes in v2:
* clamp the max allocation size at 256K in case large label areas with
  unlimited transfer sizes appear in the future.

 drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c       |   14 ++++++++------
 tools/testing/nvdimm/test/nfit.c |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c b/drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c
index 863cabc35215..3616e2e47788 100644
--- a/drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c
+++ b/drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c
@@ -111,8 +111,9 @@ int nvdimm_init_config_data(struct nvdimm_drvdata *ndd)
 	if (!ndd->data)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
-	max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, PAGE_SIZE, ndd->nsarea.max_xfer);
-	cmd = kzalloc(max_cmd_size + sizeof(*cmd), GFP_KERNEL);
+	max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, ndd->nsarea.config_size, SZ_256K);
+	max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, max_cmd_size, ndd->nsarea.max_xfer);
+	cmd = kvzalloc(max_cmd_size + sizeof(*cmd), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!cmd)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
@@ -134,7 +135,7 @@ int nvdimm_init_config_data(struct nvdimm_drvdata *ndd)
 		memcpy(ndd->data + offset, cmd->out_buf, cmd->in_length);
 	}
 	dev_dbg(ndd->dev, "len: %zu rc: %d\n", offset, rc);
-	kfree(cmd);
+	kvfree(cmd);
 
 	return rc;
 }
@@ -157,9 +158,10 @@ int nvdimm_set_config_data(struct nvdimm_drvdata *ndd, size_t offset,
 	if (offset + len > ndd->nsarea.config_size)
 		return -ENXIO;
 
-	max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, PAGE_SIZE, len);
+	max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, ndd->nsarea.config_size, SZ_256K);
 	max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, max_cmd_size, ndd->nsarea.max_xfer);
-	cmd = kzalloc(max_cmd_size + sizeof(*cmd) + sizeof(u32), GFP_KERNEL);
+	max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, max_cmd_size, len);
+	cmd = kvzalloc(max_cmd_size + sizeof(*cmd) + sizeof(u32), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!cmd)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
@@ -183,7 +185,7 @@ int nvdimm_set_config_data(struct nvdimm_drvdata *ndd, size_t offset,
 			break;
 		}
 	}
-	kfree(cmd);
+	kvfree(cmd);
 
 	return rc;
 }
diff --git a/tools/testing/nvdimm/test/nfit.c b/tools/testing/nvdimm/test/nfit.c
index cffc2c5a778d..caa58d8533f5 100644
--- a/tools/testing/nvdimm/test/nfit.c
+++ b/tools/testing/nvdimm/test/nfit.c
@@ -448,7 +448,7 @@ static int nfit_test_cmd_get_config_size(struct nd_cmd_get_config_size *nd_cmd,
 
 	nd_cmd->status = 0;
 	nd_cmd->config_size = LABEL_SIZE;
-	nd_cmd->max_xfer = SZ_4K;
+	nd_cmd->max_xfer = LABEL_SIZE;
 
 	return 0;
 }

_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] libnvdimm, dimm: Maximize label transfer size
  2018-10-01 21:14 [PATCH v2] libnvdimm, dimm: Maximize label transfer size Dan Williams
@ 2018-10-01 21:44 ` Alexander Duyck
  2018-10-01 22:02   ` Dan Williams
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Alexander Duyck @ 2018-10-01 21:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dan Williams, linux-nvdimm; +Cc: linux-kernel



On 10/1/2018 2:14 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> Use kvzalloc() to bypass the arbitrary PAGE_SIZE limit of label transfer
> operations. Given the expense of calling into firmware, maximize the
> amount of label data we transfer per call to be up to the total label
> space if allowed by the firmware, or 256K whichever is smaller.
> 
> Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> * clamp the max allocation size at 256K in case large label areas with
>    unlimited transfer sizes appear in the future.
> 
>   drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c       |   14 ++++++++------
>   tools/testing/nvdimm/test/nfit.c |    2 +-
>   2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c b/drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c
> index 863cabc35215..3616e2e47788 100644
> --- a/drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c
> @@ -111,8 +111,9 @@ int nvdimm_init_config_data(struct nvdimm_drvdata *ndd)
>   	if (!ndd->data)
>   		return -ENOMEM;
>   
> -	max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, PAGE_SIZE, ndd->nsarea.max_xfer);
> -	cmd = kzalloc(max_cmd_size + sizeof(*cmd), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, ndd->nsarea.config_size, SZ_256K);
> +	max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, max_cmd_size, ndd->nsarea.max_xfer);
> +	cmd = kvzalloc(max_cmd_size + sizeof(*cmd), GFP_KERNEL);
>   	if (!cmd)
>   		return -ENOMEM;
>   

So I wouldn't use 256K as the limit, maybe 256K minus the sizeof(*cmd). 
Otherwise you are still allocating additional memory to take care of 
that little trailing bit that is being added.

> @@ -134,7 +135,7 @@ int nvdimm_init_config_data(struct nvdimm_drvdata *ndd)
>   		memcpy(ndd->data + offset, cmd->out_buf, cmd->in_length);
>   	}
>   	dev_dbg(ndd->dev, "len: %zu rc: %d\n", offset, rc);
> -	kfree(cmd);
> +	kvfree(cmd);
>   
>   	return rc;
>   }
> @@ -157,9 +158,10 @@ int nvdimm_set_config_data(struct nvdimm_drvdata *ndd, size_t offset,
>   	if (offset + len > ndd->nsarea.config_size)
>   		return -ENXIO;
>   
> -	max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, PAGE_SIZE, len);
> +	max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, ndd->nsarea.config_size, SZ_256K);
>   	max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, max_cmd_size, ndd->nsarea.max_xfer);
> -	cmd = kzalloc(max_cmd_size + sizeof(*cmd) + sizeof(u32), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, max_cmd_size, len);
> +	cmd = kvzalloc(max_cmd_size + sizeof(*cmd) + sizeof(u32), GFP_KERNEL);
>   	if (!cmd)
>   		return -ENOMEM;
>   

For the set operation I am not sure you have any code that is going to 
be updating things multiple labels at a time. From what I can tell the 
largest set call you ever make is probably for a namespace index and 
odds are that will only ever be 256 or 512 bytes.

Also the limitations here could probably use some additional clean-up. 
For example you have a check for offset + len > config_size above this 
min_t calls. As such it should be impossible for length to ever be 
greater than config_size so you shouldn't need to test for the min of 
both and could just use the min of len versus the max_xfer.

> @@ -183,7 +185,7 @@ int nvdimm_set_config_data(struct nvdimm_drvdata *ndd, size_t offset,
>   			break;
>   		}
>   	}
> -	kfree(cmd);
> +	kvfree(cmd);
>   
>   	return rc;
>   }
> diff --git a/tools/testing/nvdimm/test/nfit.c b/tools/testing/nvdimm/test/nfit.c
> index cffc2c5a778d..caa58d8533f5 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/nvdimm/test/nfit.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/nvdimm/test/nfit.c
> @@ -448,7 +448,7 @@ static int nfit_test_cmd_get_config_size(struct nd_cmd_get_config_size *nd_cmd,
>   
>   	nd_cmd->status = 0;
>   	nd_cmd->config_size = LABEL_SIZE;
> -	nd_cmd->max_xfer = SZ_4K;
> +	nd_cmd->max_xfer = LABEL_SIZE;
>   
>   	return 0;
>   }
> 
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] libnvdimm, dimm: Maximize label transfer size
  2018-10-01 21:44 ` Alexander Duyck
@ 2018-10-01 22:02   ` Dan Williams
  2018-10-02 17:07     ` Alexander Duyck
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Dan Williams @ 2018-10-01 22:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: alexander.h.duyck; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, linux-nvdimm

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:54 PM Alexander Duyck
<alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/1/2018 2:14 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > Use kvzalloc() to bypass the arbitrary PAGE_SIZE limit of label transfer
> > operations. Given the expense of calling into firmware, maximize the
> > amount of label data we transfer per call to be up to the total label
> > space if allowed by the firmware, or 256K whichever is smaller.
> >
> > Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> > ---
> > Changes in v2:
> > * clamp the max allocation size at 256K in case large label areas with
> >    unlimited transfer sizes appear in the future.
> >
> >   drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c       |   14 ++++++++------
> >   tools/testing/nvdimm/test/nfit.c |    2 +-
> >   2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c b/drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c
> > index 863cabc35215..3616e2e47788 100644
> > --- a/drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c
> > @@ -111,8 +111,9 @@ int nvdimm_init_config_data(struct nvdimm_drvdata *ndd)
> >       if (!ndd->data)
> >               return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > -     max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, PAGE_SIZE, ndd->nsarea.max_xfer);
> > -     cmd = kzalloc(max_cmd_size + sizeof(*cmd), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +     max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, ndd->nsarea.config_size, SZ_256K);
> > +     max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, max_cmd_size, ndd->nsarea.max_xfer);
> > +     cmd = kvzalloc(max_cmd_size + sizeof(*cmd), GFP_KERNEL);
> >       if (!cmd)
> >               return -ENOMEM;
> >
>
> So I wouldn't use 256K as the limit, maybe 256K minus the sizeof(*cmd).
> Otherwise you are still allocating additional memory to take care of
> that little trailing bit that is being added.

Does it matter? This is a slow / infrequently used path and I do don't
see the practical difference of 256K vs slightly less than 256K.

> > @@ -134,7 +135,7 @@ int nvdimm_init_config_data(struct nvdimm_drvdata *ndd)
> >               memcpy(ndd->data + offset, cmd->out_buf, cmd->in_length);
> >       }
> >       dev_dbg(ndd->dev, "len: %zu rc: %d\n", offset, rc);
> > -     kfree(cmd);
> > +     kvfree(cmd);
> >
> >       return rc;
> >   }
> > @@ -157,9 +158,10 @@ int nvdimm_set_config_data(struct nvdimm_drvdata *ndd, size_t offset,
> >       if (offset + len > ndd->nsarea.config_size)
> >               return -ENXIO;
> >
> > -     max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, PAGE_SIZE, len);
> > +     max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, ndd->nsarea.config_size, SZ_256K);
> >       max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, max_cmd_size, ndd->nsarea.max_xfer);
> > -     cmd = kzalloc(max_cmd_size + sizeof(*cmd) + sizeof(u32), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +     max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, max_cmd_size, len);
> > +     cmd = kvzalloc(max_cmd_size + sizeof(*cmd) + sizeof(u32), GFP_KERNEL);
> >       if (!cmd)
> >               return -ENOMEM;
> >
>
> For the set operation I am not sure you have any code that is going to
> be updating things multiple labels at a time. From what I can tell the
> largest set call you ever make is probably for a namespace index and
> odds are that will only ever be 256 or 512 bytes.

Inside the kernel, true, but we do perform large sets from userspace.
That said I don't see why this low level routine should encode
layering violation knowledge of how it might be used.

> Also the limitations here could probably use some additional clean-up.
> For example you have a check for offset + len > config_size above this
> min_t calls. As such it should be impossible for length to ever be
> greater than config_size so you shouldn't need to test for the min of
> both and could just use the min of len versus the max_xfer.

Again that's a case of this leaf routine encoding assumptions about
how it might be used. I'd rather be pedantic since this is not a hot
path.
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] libnvdimm, dimm: Maximize label transfer size
  2018-10-01 22:02   ` Dan Williams
@ 2018-10-02 17:07     ` Alexander Duyck
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Alexander Duyck @ 2018-10-02 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dan Williams; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, linux-nvdimm



On 10/1/2018 3:02 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:54 PM Alexander Duyck
> <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/1/2018 2:14 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> Use kvzalloc() to bypass the arbitrary PAGE_SIZE limit of label transfer
>>> operations. Given the expense of calling into firmware, maximize the
>>> amount of label data we transfer per call to be up to the total label
>>> space if allowed by the firmware, or 256K whichever is smaller.
>>>
>>> Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> * clamp the max allocation size at 256K in case large label areas with
>>>     unlimited transfer sizes appear in the future.
>>>
>>>    drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c       |   14 ++++++++------
>>>    tools/testing/nvdimm/test/nfit.c |    2 +-
>>>    2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c b/drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c
>>> index 863cabc35215..3616e2e47788 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/dimm_devs.c
>>> @@ -111,8 +111,9 @@ int nvdimm_init_config_data(struct nvdimm_drvdata *ndd)
>>>        if (!ndd->data)
>>>                return -ENOMEM;
>>>
>>> -     max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, PAGE_SIZE, ndd->nsarea.max_xfer);
>>> -     cmd = kzalloc(max_cmd_size + sizeof(*cmd), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> +     max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, ndd->nsarea.config_size, SZ_256K);
>>> +     max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, max_cmd_size, ndd->nsarea.max_xfer);
>>> +     cmd = kvzalloc(max_cmd_size + sizeof(*cmd), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>        if (!cmd)
>>>                return -ENOMEM;
>>>
>>
>> So I wouldn't use 256K as the limit, maybe 256K minus the sizeof(*cmd).
>> Otherwise you are still allocating additional memory to take care of
>> that little trailing bit that is being added.
> 
> Does it matter? This is a slow / infrequently used path and I do don't
> see the practical difference of 256K vs slightly less than 256K.

It depends on the approach used. From past experience 256K could easily 
become 512K with just that extra bit of overhead. That is why I was 
thinking if we are going to make 256K the limit, we should make that the 
hard limit and not add a little bit extra onto it.

>>> @@ -134,7 +135,7 @@ int nvdimm_init_config_data(struct nvdimm_drvdata *ndd)
>>>                memcpy(ndd->data + offset, cmd->out_buf, cmd->in_length);
>>>        }
>>>        dev_dbg(ndd->dev, "len: %zu rc: %d\n", offset, rc);
>>> -     kfree(cmd);
>>> +     kvfree(cmd);
>>>
>>>        return rc;
>>>    }
>>> @@ -157,9 +158,10 @@ int nvdimm_set_config_data(struct nvdimm_drvdata *ndd, size_t offset,
>>>        if (offset + len > ndd->nsarea.config_size)
>>>                return -ENXIO;
>>>
>>> -     max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, PAGE_SIZE, len);
>>> +     max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, ndd->nsarea.config_size, SZ_256K);
>>>        max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, max_cmd_size, ndd->nsarea.max_xfer);
>>> -     cmd = kzalloc(max_cmd_size + sizeof(*cmd) + sizeof(u32), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> +     max_cmd_size = min_t(u32, max_cmd_size, len);
>>> +     cmd = kvzalloc(max_cmd_size + sizeof(*cmd) + sizeof(u32), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>        if (!cmd)
>>>                return -ENOMEM;
>>>
>>
>> For the set operation I am not sure you have any code that is going to
>> be updating things multiple labels at a time. From what I can tell the
>> largest set call you ever make is probably for a namespace index and
>> odds are that will only ever be 256 or 512 bytes.
> 
> Inside the kernel, true, but we do perform large sets from userspace.
> That said I don't see why this low level routine should encode
> layering violation knowledge of how it might be used.

Can userspace call this directly? I only see 3 callers of this and all 
of them limit themselves to writing either a single namespace index or 
label.

Also we know that the behavior is supposed to be that we only update 
what we have to as it introduces issues if we try to overwrite all of 
the config space. That is why I think it would be better to keep the 
upper limit for writes small anyway. That way we make it painful for 
somebody to do the wrong thing.

>> Also the limitations here could probably use some additional clean-up.
>> For example you have a check for offset + len > config_size above this
>> min_t calls. As such it should be impossible for length to ever be
>> greater than config_size so you shouldn't need to test for the min of
>> both and could just use the min of len versus the max_xfer.
> 
> Again that's a case of this leaf routine encoding assumptions about
> how it might be used. I'd rather be pedantic since this is not a hot
> path.

No. This is me reading the code. Just to be clear, before we start 
trying to determine the max_cmd_size we have the following bit of code:
	if (offset + len > ndd->nsarea.config_size)
		return -ENXIO;

So if that logic is already there how can we have len be greater than 
ndd->nsarea.config_size? As far as I can tell we can't so we could save 
ourselves one of the min_t checks since we know len should always be 
less than or equal to ndd->nsarea.config_size.

_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2018-10-02 17:07 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-10-01 21:14 [PATCH v2] libnvdimm, dimm: Maximize label transfer size Dan Williams
2018-10-01 21:44 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-01 22:02   ` Dan Williams
2018-10-02 17:07     ` Alexander Duyck

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).