Message-ID: <CAKgT0UfG99tb29TOSQmDqnhy4uck5t+pjgeJnweqkV-EUuq3VA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:18:09 -0700
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To:	konrad.wilk@...cle.com, konrad@...nel.org
Cc:	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
	rob@...dley.net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, joerg.roedel@....com,
	bhelgaas@...gle.com, shuahkhan@...il.com,
	fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] Improve swiotlb performance by using physical addresses

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Alexander Duyck
<alexander.h.duyck@...el.com> wrote:
> While working on 10Gb/s routing performance I found a significant amount of
> time was being spent in the swiotlb DMA handler. Further digging found that a
> significant amount of this was due to virtual to physical address translation
> and calling the function that did it. It accounted for nearly 60% of the
> total swiotlb overhead.
>
> This patch set works to resolve that by replacing the io_tlb_start and
> io_tlb_end virtual addresses with a physical addresses. In addition it changes
> the io_tlb_overflow_buffer from a virtual to a physical address. I followed
> through with the cleanup to the point that the only functions that really
> require the virtual address for the DMA buffer are the init, free, and
> bounce functions.
>
> In the case of devices that are using the bounce buffers these patches should
> result in only a slight performance gain if any. This is due to the locking
> overhead required to map and unmap the buffers.
>
> In the case of devices that are not making use of bounce buffers these patches
> can significantly reduce their overhead. In the case of an ixgbe routing test
> for example, these changes result in 7 fewer calls to __phys_addr and
> allow is_swiotlb_buffer to become inlined due to a reduction in the number of
> instructions. When running a routing throughput test using small packets I
> saw roughly a 6% increase in packets rates after applying these patches. This
> appears to match up with the CPU overhead reduction I was tracking via perf.
>
> Before:
> Results 10.0Mpps
>
> After:
> Results 10.6Mpps
>
> Finally, I updated the parameter names for several of the core function calls
> as there was some ambiguity in naming. Specifically virtual address pointers
> were named dma_addr. When I changed these pointers to physical I instead used
> the name tlb_addr as this value represented a physical address in the
> io_tlb_start region and is less likely to be confused with a bus address.
>
> v2:
> I reviewed the changes and realized that the first patch that was dropping
> io_tlb_end and calculating the value didn't actually gain me much once I had
> gone through and translated the rest of the addresses to physical addresses.
> As such I have updated the patch so that it instead is converting io_tlb_end
> from a virtual address to a physical address.  This actually helps to reduce
> the overhead for is_swiotlb_buffer and swiotlb_dma_supported by several
> instructions.
>
> v3:
> After reviewing the patches I realized I was causing some namespace pollution
> since a "static char *" was being replaced with "phys_addr_t" when it should
> have been "static phys_addr_t".  As such I have updated the first 3 patches to
> correctly replace static pointers with static physical addresses.
>
> ---
>
> Alexander Duyck (7):
>       swiotlb:  Do not export swiotlb_bounce since there are no external consumers
>       swiotlb: Use physical addresses instead of virtual in swiotlb_tbl_sync_single
>       swiotlb: Use physical addresses for swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single
>       swiotlb: Return physical addresses when calling swiotlb_tbl_map_single
>       swiotlb: Make io_tlb_overflow_buffer a physical address
>       swiotlb: Make io_tlb_start a physical address instead of a virtual one
>       swiotlb: Make io_tlb_end a physical address instead of a virtual one
>
>
>  drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c |   25 ++--
>  include/linux/swiotlb.h   |   20 ++-
>  lib/swiotlb.c             |  269 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>  3 files changed, 163 insertions(+), 151 deletions(-)
>

Is there any ETA on when this patch series might be pulled into a
tree?  I'm just wondering if I need to rebase this patch series and
resubmit it, and if so what tree I need to rebase it off of?

Thanks,

Alex
--
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