Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1714543
| From | "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/5] arm-smmu: performance optimization |
| Date | 2017-08-18 05:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ufG8V-5ZU-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tWCpb-2Xw-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <ufu7L-67i-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 2017/8/17 22:36, Will Deacon wrote: > Thunder, Nate, Robin, > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 09:38:45PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote: >> I described the optimization more detail in patch 1 and 2, and patch 3-5 are >> the implementation on arm-smmu/arm-smmu-v3 of patch 2. >> >> Patch 1 is v2. In v1, I directly replaced writel with writel_relaxed in >> queue_inc_prod. But Robin figured that it may lead SMMU consume stale >> memory contents. I thought more than 3 whole days and got this one. >> >> This patchset is based on Robin Murphy's [PATCH v2 0/8] io-pgtable lock removal. > > For the time being, I think we should focus on the new TLB flushing > interface posted by Joerg: > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1502974596-23835-1-git-send-email-joro@8bytes.org > > which looks like it can give us most of the benefits of this series. Once > we've got that, we can see what's left in the way of performance and focus > on the cmdq batching separately (because I'm still not convinced about it). OK, this is a good news. But I have a review comment(sorry, I have not subscribed it yet, so can not directly reply it): I don't think we should add tlb sync for map operation 1. at init time, all tlbs will be invalidated 2. when we try to map a new range, there are no related ptes bufferd in tlb, because of above 1 and below 3 3. when we unmap the above range, make sure all related ptes bufferd in tlb to be invalidated before unmap finished > > Thanks, > > Will > > . > -- Thanks! BestRegards
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH 0/5] arm-smmu: performance optimization Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2017-08-17 16:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/5] arm-smmu: performance optimization "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> - 2017-08-18 05:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/5] arm-smmu: performance optimization Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2017-08-18 10:40 +0200
csiph-web