linux-kernel - Re: Ideas/suggestions to avoid repeated locking and reducing too many lists with dmaengine?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:50:28 -0600
From:	Andy Gross <agross@...eaurora.org>
To:	Joel Fernandes <joelf@...com>
Cc:	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Ideas/suggestions to avoid repeated locking and reducing too
 many lists with dmaengine?

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 01:03:32PM -0600, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> Just wanted your thoughts/suggestions on how we can avoid overhead in the EDMA
> dmaengine driver. I am seeing a lots of performance drop specially for small
> transfers with EDMA versus before raw EDMA was moved to DMAEngine framework
> (atleast 25%).

I've seen roughly the same drop in my testing.  In my case it had to do with the
nature of how work is done using virt-dma.  The virt-dma is predicated on only
letting one transaction be active at a time and it increases the latency for
getting the next transaction off.  For large transactions, it's negligible.  But
for small transactions, it is pretty evident.


> One of the things I am thinking about is the repeated (spin) locking/unlocking
> of the virt_dma_chan->lock or vc->lock. In many cases, there's only 1 user or
> thread requiring to do a DMA, so I feel the locking is unnecessary and potential
> overhead. If there's a sane way to detect this an avoid locking altogether, that
> would be great.

I'd expect the locking to not be the source of the problem, especially with
your use case.

[snip]

-- 
sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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/