[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55883605.5020706@sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 09:21:25 -0700
From: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
CC: roland@...estorage.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Clive Harding <clive@....com>, Russ Anderson <rja@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm, x86: Remove region_is_ram() call from ioremap
On 6/19/2015 2:44 PM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> __ioremap_caller() calls region_is_ram() to look up the resource
> to check if a target range is RAM, which was added as an additinal
> check to improve the lookup performance over page_is_ram() (commit
> 906e36c5c717 "x86: use optimized ioresource lookup in ioremap
> function").
>
> __ioremap_caller() then calls walk_system_ram_range(), which had
> replaced page_is_ram() to improve the lookup performance (commit
> c81c8a1eeede "x86, ioremap: Speed up check for RAM pages").
>
> Since both functions walk through the resource table, there is
> no need to call the two functions. Furthermore, region_is_ram()
> has bugs and always returns with -1. This makes
> walk_system_ram_range() as the only check being used.
Do you have an example of a failing case? Also, I didn't know that
IOREMAP'd addresses were allowed to be on non-page boundaries?
Here's the comment and reason for the patches from Patch 0:
<<<
We have a large university system in the UK that is experiencing
very long delays modprobing the driver for a specific I/O device.
The delay is from 8-10 minutes per device and there are 31 devices
in the system. This 4 to 5 hour delay in starting up those I/O
devices is very much a burden on the customer.
...
The problem was tracked down to a very slow IOREMAP operation and
the excessively long ioresource lookup to insure that the user is
not attempting to ioremap RAM. These patches provide a speed up
to that function.
>>>
The speed up was pretty dramatic, I think to about 15-20 minutes
(the test was done by our local CS person in the UK). I think this
would prove the function was working since it would have fallen
back to the previous page_is_ram function and the 4 to 5 hour
startup.
If there is a failure, it would be better for all to fix the specific
bug and not re-introduce the original problem. Perhaps drop to
page is ram if the address is not page aligned?
> Hence, remove the call to region_is_ram() from __ioremap_caller().
>
> Note, removing the call to region_is_ram() is also necessary
> to fix the bugs in region_is_ram(). walk_system_ram_range()
> requires RAM ranges aligned by the page size in the resource
> table. e820_reserve_setup_data() updates the e820 table by
> allocating a separate entry to each data region in setup_data,
> which is not page-aligned. Therefore, walk_system_ram_range()
> is unable to detect the RAM ranges in setup_data. This
> restriction has allowed multiple uses of ioremap() to map
> setup_data. Using fixed region_is_ram() will cause these callers
> to start failing. After all ioremap to setup_data are converted,
> __ioremap_caller() may call region_is_ram() instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
> ---
> arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c | 24 ++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c b/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c
> index 56f8af7..928867e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c
> @@ -89,7 +89,6 @@ static void __iomem *__ioremap_caller(resource_size_t phys_addr,
> pgprot_t prot;
> int retval;
> void __iomem *ret_addr;
> - int ram_region;
>
> /* Don't allow wraparound or zero size */
> last_addr = phys_addr + size - 1;
> @@ -112,26 +111,15 @@ static void __iomem *__ioremap_caller(resource_size_t phys_addr,
> /*
> * Don't allow anybody to remap normal RAM that we're using..
> */
> - /* First check if whole region can be identified as RAM or not */
> - ram_region = region_is_ram(phys_addr, size);
> - if (ram_region > 0) {
> - WARN_ONCE(1, "ioremap on RAM at 0x%lx - 0x%lx\n",
> - (unsigned long int)phys_addr,
> - (unsigned long int)last_addr);
> - return NULL;
> - }
> -
> - /* If could not be identified(-1), check page by page */
> - if (ram_region < 0) {
> - pfn = phys_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> - last_pfn = last_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> - if (walk_system_ram_range(pfn, last_pfn - pfn + 1, NULL,
> + pfn = phys_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> + last_pfn = last_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> + if (walk_system_ram_range(pfn, last_pfn - pfn + 1, NULL,
> __ioremap_check_ram) == 1) {
> - WARN_ONCE(1, "ioremap on RAM at 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
> + WARN_ONCE(1, "ioremap on RAM at 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
> phys_addr, last_addr);
> - return NULL;
> - }
> + return NULL;
> }
> +
> /*
> * Mappings have to be page-aligned
> */
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists