linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 0/7] Add non-strict mode support for iommu-dma

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]

Message-ID: <796e20eb-a0bd-f559-6cf2-f97fddf0114e@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Sep 2018 15:35:20 +0100
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, <joro@...tes.org>,
        <will.deacon@....com>, <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>,
        <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     <linuxarm@...wei.com>, <huawei.libin@...wei.com>,
        <guohanjun@...wei.com>, chenxiang <chenxiang66@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/7] Add non-strict mode support for iommu-dma

On 21/09/2018 12:03, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 21/09/18 10:29, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> Hi John,
>>
>> On 2018-09-21 10:20 AM, John Garry wrote:
>>> On 20/09/2018 17:10, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully this is the last spin of the series - I've now dropped my
>>>> light
>>>> touch and fixed up all the various prose text, plus implemented the
>>>> proper
>>>> quirk support for short-descriptor because it's actually just a trivial
>>>> cut-and-paste job.
>>>>
>>>> Robin.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Robin,
>>>
>>> JFYI, I'm trying to test this patchset to get some figures and
>>> provide a tested-by tag, but 4/8 seems to rely on
>>> "iommu/io-pgtable-arm: Fix race handling in split_blk_unmap()" - more
>>> specifically, it seems to rely on the version which Will rewrote in
>>> your patch review, and I am not sure on what branch it exists on, if
>>> any.
>>
>> Sorry, I should have said this is based on Will's iommu/devel branch:
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/will/linux.git/log/?h=iommu/devel
>
>
> FWIW I've now pushed out a complete branch here:
>
>   git://linux-arm.org/linux-rm iommu/non-strict
>

Cheers

So for my network test scenario I was getting a boost @ 250K vs 160K 
packet(s)/second with strict off/on

For NVMe single disk performance, I was getting a boost @ 582K vs 370K 
IOPS with strict off/on.

I wasn't seeing such a boost for other storage controller scenario 
(that's with 6 SSDs), with 776K vs 740K IOPS for strict off/on, but SMMU 
off was ~800K IOPS.

FWIW:
Tested-by: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>

Thanks,
John

>
> Robin.
>
> .
>