[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200109143108.GA22656@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 15:31:08 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
"Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
"Singh, Brijesh" <brijesh.singh@....com>,
"Grimm, Jon" <jon.grimm@....com>, baekhw@...gle.com,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc] dma-mapping: preallocate unencrypted DMA atomic pool
On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 11:57:24AM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> I'll rely on Thomas to chime in if this doesn't make sense for the SEV
> usecase.
>
> I think the sizing of the single atomic pool needs to be determined. Our
> peak usage that we have measured from NVMe is ~1.4MB and atomic_pool is
> currently sized to 256KB by default. I'm unsure at this time if we need
> to be able to dynamically expand this pool with a kworker.
>
> Maybe when CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT is enabled this atomic pool should be
> sized to 2MB or so and then when it reaches half capacity we schedule some
> background work to dynamically increase it? That wouldn't be hard unless
> the pool can be rapidly depleted.
>
Note that a non-coherent architecture with the same workload would need
the same size.
> Do we want to increase the atomic pool size by default and then do
> background dynamic expansion?
For now I'd just scale with system memory size.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists