linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] arm-smmu: performance optimization

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:   Thu, 17 Aug 2017 15:36:50 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        iommu <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>, Xinwei Hu <huxinwei@...wei.com>,
        Tianhong Ding <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
        John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>, nwatters@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] arm-smmu: performance optimization

Thunder, Nate, Robin,

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 09:38:45PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
> I described the optimization more detail in patch 1 and 2, and patch 3-5 are
> the implementation on arm-smmu/arm-smmu-v3 of patch 2.
> 
> Patch 1 is v2. In v1, I directly replaced writel with writel_relaxed in
> queue_inc_prod. But Robin figured that it may lead SMMU consume stale
> memory contents. I thought more than 3 whole days and got this one.
> 
> This patchset is based on Robin Murphy's [PATCH v2 0/8] io-pgtable lock removal.

For the time being, I think we should focus on the new TLB flushing
interface posted by Joerg:

http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1502974596-23835-1-git-send-email-joro@8bytes.org

which looks like it can give us most of the benefits of this series. Once
we've got that, we can see what's left in the way of performance and focus
on the cmdq batching separately (because I'm still not convinced about it).

Thanks,

Will