[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8efbdd09-8f0f-e6fe-ab82-db08f6d5b5b5@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 11:18:12 +0530
From: Vijayanand Jitta <vjitta@...eaurora.org>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, joro@...tes.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: vinmenon@...eaurora.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] iommu/iova: Retry from last rb tree node if iova
search fails
On 9/18/2020 7:48 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2020-08-20 13:49, vjitta@...eaurora.org wrote:
>> From: Vijayanand Jitta <vjitta@...eaurora.org>
>>
>> When ever a new iova alloc request comes iova is always searched
>> from the cached node and the nodes which are previous to cached
>> node. So, even if there is free iova space available in the nodes
>> which are next to the cached node iova allocation can still fail
>> because of this approach.
>>
>> Consider the following sequence of iova alloc and frees on
>> 1GB of iova space
>>
>> 1) alloc - 500MB
>> 2) alloc - 12MB
>> 3) alloc - 499MB
>> 4) free - 12MB which was allocated in step 2
>> 5) alloc - 13MB
>>
>> After the above sequence we will have 12MB of free iova space and
>> cached node will be pointing to the iova pfn of last alloc of 13MB
>> which will be the lowest iova pfn of that iova space. Now if we get an
>> alloc request of 2MB we just search from cached node and then look
>> for lower iova pfn's for free iova and as they aren't any, iova alloc
>> fails though there is 12MB of free iova space.
>>
>> To avoid such iova search failures do a retry from the last rb tree node
>> when iova search fails, this will search the entire tree and get an iova
>> if its available.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vijayanand Jitta <vjitta@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/iommu/iova.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iova.c b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
>> index 49fc01f..4e77116 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/iova.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
>> @@ -184,8 +184,9 @@ static int __alloc_and_insert_iova_range(struct
>> iova_domain *iovad,
>> struct rb_node *curr, *prev;
>> struct iova *curr_iova;
>> unsigned long flags;
>> - unsigned long new_pfn;
>> + unsigned long new_pfn, low_pfn_new;
>> unsigned long align_mask = ~0UL;
>> + unsigned long high_pfn = limit_pfn, low_pfn = iovad->start_pfn;
>> if (size_aligned)
>> align_mask <<= fls_long(size - 1);
>> @@ -198,15 +199,25 @@ static int __alloc_and_insert_iova_range(struct
>> iova_domain *iovad,
>> curr = __get_cached_rbnode(iovad, limit_pfn);
>> curr_iova = rb_entry(curr, struct iova, node);
>> + low_pfn_new = curr_iova->pfn_hi + 1;
>
> Could we call "low_pfn_new" something like "retry_pfn" instead? This
> code already has unavoidable readability struggles with so many
> different "pfn"s in play, so having two different meanings of "new"
> really doesn't help.
>
> Other than that, I think this looks OK (IIRC it's basically what I
> originally suggested), so with the naming tweaked,
>
> Reviewed-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
>
Thanks for review, I have renamed it to retry_pfn in v4.
Thanks,
Vijay
>> +
>> +retry:
>> do {
>> - limit_pfn = min(limit_pfn, curr_iova->pfn_lo);
>> - new_pfn = (limit_pfn - size) & align_mask;
>> + high_pfn = min(high_pfn, curr_iova->pfn_lo);
>> + new_pfn = (high_pfn - size) & align_mask;
>> prev = curr;
>> curr = rb_prev(curr);
>> curr_iova = rb_entry(curr, struct iova, node);
>> - } while (curr && new_pfn <= curr_iova->pfn_hi);
>> -
>> - if (limit_pfn < size || new_pfn < iovad->start_pfn) {
>> + } while (curr && new_pfn <= curr_iova->pfn_hi && new_pfn >=
>> low_pfn);
>> +
>> + if (high_pfn < size || new_pfn < low_pfn) {
>> + if (low_pfn == iovad->start_pfn && low_pfn_new < limit_pfn) {
>> + high_pfn = limit_pfn;
>> + low_pfn = low_pfn_new;
>> + curr = &iovad->anchor.node;
>> + curr_iova = rb_entry(curr, struct iova, node);
>> + goto retry;
>> + }
>> iovad->max32_alloc_size = size;
>> goto iova32_full;
>> }
>>
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
Powered by blists - more mailing lists