[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bee8ac5a-b19f-8112-5529-485c269f3501@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 10:06:12 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gpkulkarni@...il.com>
Cc: Shanker Donthineni <shankerd@...eaurora.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Vikram Sethi <vikrams@...eaurora.org>,
Jayachandran C <jnair@...iumnetworks.com>,
"ganapatrao.kulkarni@...ium.com" <ganapatrao.kulkarni@...ium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip: gicv3-its: Use NUMA aware memory allocation for
ITS tables
On 10/07/17 09:48, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com> wrote:
>> Hi Shanker,
>>
>> On 03/07/17 15:24, Shanker Donthineni wrote:
>>> Hi Marc,
>>>
>>> On 06/30/2017 03:51 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> On 30/06/17 04:01, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Ganapatrao Kulkarni
>>>>> <gpkulkarni@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Shanker,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 9:16 PM, Shanker Donthineni
>>>>>> <shankerd@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> The NUMA node information is visible to ITS driver but not being used
>>>>>>> other than handling errata. This patch allocates the memory for ITS
>>>>>>> tables from the corresponding NUMA node using the appropriate NUMA
>>>>>>> aware functions.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO, the description would have been more constructive?
>>>>>
>>>>> "All ITS tables are mapped by default to NODE 0 memory.
>>>>> Adding changes to allocate memory from respective NUMA NODES of ITS devices.
>>>>> This will optimize tables access and avoids unnecessary inter-node traffic."
>>>>
>>>> But more importantly, I'd like to see figures showing the actual benefit
>>>> of this per-node allocation. Given that both of you guys have access to
>>>> such platforms, please show me the numbers!
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'll share the actual results which shows the improvement whenever
>>> available on our next chips. Current version of Qualcomm qdf2400 doesn't
>>> support multi socket configuration to capture results and share with you.
>>>
>>> Do you see any other issues with this patch apart from the performance
>>> improvements. I strongly believe this brings the noticeable improvement
>>> in numbers on systems where it has multi node memory/CPU configuration.
>>
>> I agree that it *could* show an improvement, but it very much depends on
>> how often the ITS misses in its caches. For this kind of patches, I want
>> to see two things:
>>
>> 1) It brings a measurable benefit on NUMA platforms
>
> Did some measurement of interrupt response time for LPIs and we don't
> see any major
> improvement due to caching of Tables. However, we have seen
> improvements of around 5%.
An improvement of what exactly?
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists