Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1452227 > unrolled thread

[PATCH] tpm: fix cacheline alignment for DMA-able buffers

Started byAndrey Pronin <apronin@chromium.org>
First post2016-07-29 05:00 +0200
Last post2016-08-10 22:40 +0200
Articles 6 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel


Contents

  [PATCH] tpm: fix cacheline alignment for DMA-able buffers Andrey Pronin <apronin@chromium.org> - 2016-07-29 05:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] tpm: fix cacheline alignment for DMA-able buffers Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> - 2016-07-29 19:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] tpm: fix cacheline alignment for DMA-able buffers Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2016-08-09 11:50 +0200
        Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: fix cacheline alignment for DMA-able  buffers Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2016-08-09 17:10 +0200
          Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: fix cacheline alignment for DMA-able  buffers Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> - 2016-08-10 00:10 +0200
          Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: fix cacheline alignment for DMA-able  buffers Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2016-08-10 22:40 +0200

#1452227 — [PATCH] tpm: fix cacheline alignment for DMA-able buffers

FromAndrey Pronin <apronin@chromium.org>
Date2016-07-29 05:00 +0200
Subject[PATCH] tpm: fix cacheline alignment for DMA-able buffers
Message-ID<s06bL-70o-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Annotate buffers used in spi transactions as ____cacheline_aligned
to use in DMA transfers.

Signed-off-by: Andrey Pronin <apronin@chromium.org>
---
 drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c | 4 ++--
 drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi.c  | 4 ++--
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c b/drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c
index 9f5a011..0e9aad9 100644
--- a/drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c
+++ b/drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c
@@ -70,8 +70,8 @@
 struct st33zp24_spi_phy {
 	struct spi_device *spi_device;
 
-	u8 tx_buf[ST33ZP24_SPI_BUFFER_SIZE];
-	u8 rx_buf[ST33ZP24_SPI_BUFFER_SIZE];
+	u8 tx_buf[ST33ZP24_SPI_BUFFER_SIZE] ____cacheline_aligned;
+	u8 rx_buf[ST33ZP24_SPI_BUFFER_SIZE] ____cacheline_aligned;
 
 	int io_lpcpd;
 	int latency;
diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi.c
index dbaad9c..58d7758 100644
--- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi.c
+++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi.c
@@ -48,8 +48,8 @@ struct tpm_tis_spi_phy {
 	struct tpm_tis_data priv;
 	struct spi_device *spi_device;
 
-	u8 tx_buf[MAX_SPI_FRAMESIZE + 4];
-	u8 rx_buf[MAX_SPI_FRAMESIZE + 4];
+	u8 tx_buf[MAX_SPI_FRAMESIZE + 4] ____cacheline_aligned;
+	u8 rx_buf[MAX_SPI_FRAMESIZE + 4] ____cacheline_aligned;
 };
 
 static inline struct tpm_tis_spi_phy *to_tpm_tis_spi_phy(struct tpm_tis_data *data)
-- 
2.6.6

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1452486

FromJason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
Date2016-07-29 19:30 +0200
Message-ID<s0jLH-7HL-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1452227
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 07:59:13PM -0700, Andrey Pronin wrote:
> Annotate buffers used in spi transactions as ____cacheline_aligned
> to use in DMA transfers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrey Pronin <apronin@chromium.org>
>  drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c | 4 ++--
>  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi.c  | 4 ++--
>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c b/drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c
> index 9f5a011..0e9aad9 100644
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c
> @@ -70,8 +70,8 @@
>  struct st33zp24_spi_phy {
>  	struct spi_device *spi_device;
>  
> -	u8 tx_buf[ST33ZP24_SPI_BUFFER_SIZE];
> -	u8 rx_buf[ST33ZP24_SPI_BUFFER_SIZE];
> +	u8 tx_buf[ST33ZP24_SPI_BUFFER_SIZE] ____cacheline_aligned;
> +	u8 rx_buf[ST33ZP24_SPI_BUFFER_SIZE] ____cacheline_aligned;
>  
>  	int io_lpcpd;
>  	int latency;

Hurm, this still looks wrong to me. Aligning the start of buffers is
not enough, the DMA'able space must also end on a cache line as well.

So, the buffers must also always be placed at the end of the struct.

IMHO It would be cleaner and safer to always kmalloc the DMA buffer
alone than to try and optimize like this.

Jason

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1458553

FromJarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Date2016-08-09 11:50 +0200
Message-ID<s4bPz-5Nd-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1452486
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:30:22AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>    On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Jason Gunthorpe
>    <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> wrote:
> 
>      On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 07:59:13PM -0700, Andrey Pronin wrote:
>      > Annotate buffers used in spi transactions as ____cacheline_aligned
>      > to use in DMA transfers.
>      >
>      > Signed-off-by: Andrey Pronin <apronin@chromium.org>
>      >  drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c | 4 ++--
>      >  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi.c  | 4 ++--
>      >  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>      >
>      > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c
>      b/drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c
>      > index 9f5a011..0e9aad9 100644
>      > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c
>      > @@ -70,8 +70,8 @@
>      >  struct st33zp24_spi_phy {
>      >       struct spi_device *spi_device;
>      >
>      > -     u8 tx_buf[ST33ZP24_SPI_BUFFER_SIZE];
>      > -     u8 rx_buf[ST33ZP24_SPI_BUFFER_SIZE];
>      > +     u8 tx_buf[ST33ZP24_SPI_BUFFER_SIZE] ____cacheline_aligned;
>      > +     u8 rx_buf[ST33ZP24_SPI_BUFFER_SIZE] ____cacheline_aligned;
>      >
>      >       int io_lpcpd;
>      >       int latency;
> 
>      Hurm, this still looks wrong to me. Aligning the start of buffers is
>      not enough, the DMA'able space must also end on a cache line as well.
> 
>      So, the buffers must also always be placed at the end of the struct.
> 
>      IMHO It would be cleaner and safer to always kmalloc the DMA buffer
>      alone than to try and optimize like this.
> 
>    In this case moving them to the end of the structure and commenting why
>    they have to be at the end might be less invasive change. More
>    performance-efficient and resilient in low memory situations too.

kmallocs would be done in the driver initialization:

* you rarely are in low memory situation
* performance gain/loss is insignificant

I really don't see your point.

>    Thanks,
>    Dmitry

/Jarkko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1458829 — Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: fix cacheline alignment for DMA-able buffers

FromJarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Date2016-08-09 17:10 +0200
SubjectRe: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: fix cacheline alignment for DMA-able buffers
Message-ID<s4gPf-NP-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1458553
On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 12:46:10PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:30:22AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >    On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Jason Gunthorpe
> >    <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> wrote:
> > 
> >      On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 07:59:13PM -0700, Andrey Pronin wrote:
> >      > Annotate buffers used in spi transactions as ____cacheline_aligned
> >      > to use in DMA transfers.
> >      >
> >      > Signed-off-by: Andrey Pronin <apronin@chromium.org>
> >      >  drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c | 4 ++--
> >      >  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi.c  | 4 ++--
> >      >  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >      >
> >      > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c
> >      b/drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c
> >      > index 9f5a011..0e9aad9 100644
> >      > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c
> >      > @@ -70,8 +70,8 @@
> >      >  struct st33zp24_spi_phy {
> >      >       struct spi_device *spi_device;
> >      >
> >      > -     u8 tx_buf[ST33ZP24_SPI_BUFFER_SIZE];
> >      > -     u8 rx_buf[ST33ZP24_SPI_BUFFER_SIZE];
> >      > +     u8 tx_buf[ST33ZP24_SPI_BUFFER_SIZE] ____cacheline_aligned;
> >      > +     u8 rx_buf[ST33ZP24_SPI_BUFFER_SIZE] ____cacheline_aligned;
> >      >
> >      >       int io_lpcpd;
> >      >       int latency;
> > 
> >      Hurm, this still looks wrong to me. Aligning the start of buffers is
> >      not enough, the DMA'able space must also end on a cache line as well.
> > 
> >      So, the buffers must also always be placed at the end of the struct.
> > 
> >      IMHO It would be cleaner and safer to always kmalloc the DMA buffer
> >      alone than to try and optimize like this.
> > 
> >    In this case moving them to the end of the structure and commenting why
> >    they have to be at the end might be less invasive change. More
> >    performance-efficient and resilient in low memory situations too.
> 
> kmallocs would be done in the driver initialization:
> 
> * you rarely are in low memory situation
> * performance gain/loss is insignificant
> 
> I really don't see your point.

I'm fine having them at the end of the structure mainly for simplicity
reasons but those arguments just didn't hold at all.

/Jarkko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1459153 — Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: fix cacheline alignment for DMA-able buffers

FromJason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
Date2016-08-10 00:10 +0200
SubjectRe: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: fix cacheline alignment for DMA-able buffers
Message-ID<s4nnH-4Yg-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1458829
On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 08:18:00AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

>    Well, the main reason was simplicity and invasiveness of the
>    change.

Well, it isn't simple, because the proposed patches have had subtle
problems with DMA. Simple is to use a guaranteed dma-able allocation
for DMA memory and stop trying to over optimize.

Jason

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1459855 — Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: fix cacheline alignment for DMA-able buffers

FromJarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Date2016-08-10 22:40 +0200
SubjectRe: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: fix cacheline alignment for DMA-able buffers
Message-ID<s4Is9-1A3-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1458829
On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 08:18:00AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>    On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen
>    <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
>      On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 12:46:10PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>      > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:30:22AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>      > >    On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Jason Gunthorpe
>      > >    <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> wrote:
>      > >
>      > >      On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 07:59:13PM -0700, Andrey Pronin
>      wrote:
>      > >      > Annotate buffers used in spi transactions as
>      ____cacheline_aligned
>      > >      > to use in DMA transfers.
>      > >      >
>      > >      > Signed-off-by: Andrey Pronin <apronin@chromium.org>
>      > >      >  drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c | 4 ++--
>      > >      >  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi.c  | 4 ++--
>      > >      >  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>      > >      >
>      > >      > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c
>      > >      b/drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c
>      > >      > index 9f5a011..0e9aad9 100644
>      > >      > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c
>      > >      > @@ -70,8 +70,8 @@
>      > >      >  struct st33zp24_spi_phy {
>      > >      >       struct spi_device *spi_device;
>      > >      >
>      > >      > -     u8 tx_buf[ST33ZP24_SPI_BUFFER_SIZE];
>      > >      > -     u8 rx_buf[ST33ZP24_SPI_BUFFER_SIZE];
>      > >      > +     u8 tx_buf[ST33ZP24_SPI_BUFFER_SIZE]
>      ____cacheline_aligned;
>      > >      > +     u8 rx_buf[ST33ZP24_SPI_BUFFER_SIZE]
>      ____cacheline_aligned;
>      > >      >
>      > >      >       int io_lpcpd;
>      > >      >       int latency;
>      > >
>      > >      Hurm, this still looks wrong to me. Aligning the start of
>      buffers is
>      > >      not enough, the DMA'able space must also end on a cache line
>      as well.
>      > >
>      > >      So, the buffers must also always be placed at the end of the
>      struct.
>      > >
>      > >      IMHO It would be cleaner and safer to always kmalloc the DMA
>      buffer
>      > >      alone than to try and optimize like this.
>      > >
>      > >    In this case moving them to the end of the structure and
>      commenting why
>      > >    they have to be at the end might be less invasive change. More
>      > >    performance-efficient and resilient in low memory situations
>      too.
>      >
>      > kmallocs would be done in the driver initialization:
>      >
>      > * you rarely are in low memory situation
>      > * performance gain/loss is insignificant
>      >
>      > I really don't see your point.
> 
>      I'm fine having them at the end of the structure mainly for simplicity
>      reasons but those arguments just didn't hold at all.
> 
>    Well, the main reason was simplicity and invasiveness of the change.
>    But I still maintain that doing 3 memory allocations instead of 1 is less
>    performant and puts more pressure on the kernel. Yes, it is at bind time,
>    but you do not have to do 3 times work when one allocation will suffice.
>    Also, driver binding does not necessarily happen at boot time. I can
>    always unbind and rebind the driver or reload the module.

I'm fine with either approach.

>    Thanks,
>    Dmitry

/Jarkko

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web