[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081122094807.GK29705@8bytes.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 10:48:07 +0100
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] x86: add initialization code for DMA-API debugging
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 06:43:48PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com> wrote:
>
> > +static struct list_head dma_entry_hash[HASH_SIZE];
> > +
> > +/* A slab cache to allocate dma_map_entries fast */
> > +static struct kmem_cache *dma_entry_cache;
> > +
> > +/* lock to protect the data structures */
> > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(dma_lock);
>
> some more generic comments about the data structure: it's main purpose
> is to provide a mapping based on (dev,addr). There's little if any
> cross-entry interaction - same-address+same-dev DMA is checked.
>
> 1)
>
> the hash:
>
> + return (entry->dev_addr >> HASH_FN_SHIFT) & HASH_FN_MASK;
>
> should mix in entry->dev as well - that way we get not just per
> address but per device hash space separation as well.
>
> 2)
>
> HASH_FN_SHIFT is 1MB chunks right now - that's probably fine in
> practice albeit perhaps a bit too small. There's seldom any coherency
> between the physical addresses of DMA - we rarely have any real
> (performance-relevant) physical co-location of DMA addresses beyond 4K
> granularity. So using 1MB chunking here will discard a good deal of
> random low bits we should be hashing on.
>
> 3)
>
> And the most scalable locking would be per hash bucket locking - no
> global lock is needed. The bucket hash heads should probably be
> cacheline sized - so we'd get one lock per bucket.
Hmm, I just had the idea of saving this data in struct device. How about
that? The locking should scale too and we can extend it easier. For
example it simplifys a per-device disable function for the checking. Or
another future feature might be leak tracing.
> This way if there's irq+DMA traffic on one CPU from one device into
> one range of memory, and irq+DMA traffic on another CPU to another
> device, they will map to two different hash buckets.
>
> 4)
>
> Plus it might be an option to make hash lookup lockless as well:
> depending on the DMA flux we can get a lot of lookups, and taking the
> bucket lock can be avoided, if you use RCU-safe list ops and drive the
> refilling of the free entries pool from RCU.
Joerg
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists