linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] Revert "iommu/iova: Retry from last rb tree node if iova search fails"

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: <0cb64d74-0ec1-2284-f67a-b1619a3eb138@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Mar 2021 12:30:51 +0000
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        iommu <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Vijayanand Jitta <vjitta@...eaurora.org>,
        Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        chenxiang <chenxiang66@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Revert "iommu/iova: Retry from last rb tree node if
 iova search fails"

On 01/03/2021 15:48, John Garry wrote:
>>
>> While max32_alloc_size indirectly tracks the largest*contiguous* 
>> available space, one of the ideas from which it grew was to simply keep
>> count of the total number of free PFNs. If you're really spending
>> significant time determining that the tree is full, as opposed to just
>> taking longer to eventually succeed, then it might be relatively
>> innocuous to tack on that semi-redundant extra accounting as a
>> self-contained quick fix for that worst case.
>>
>>> Anyway, we see ~50% throughput regression, which is intolerable. As seen
>>> in [0], I put this down to the fact that we have so many IOVA requests
>>> which exceed the rcache size limit, which means many RB tree accesses
>>> for non-cacheble IOVAs, which are now slower.
> 
> I will attempt to prove this by increasing RCACHE RANGE, such that all 
> IOVA sizes may be cached.

About this one, as expected, we restore performance by increasing the 
RCACHE RANGE.

Some figures:
Baseline v5.12-rc1

strict mode:
600K IOPs

Revert "iommu/iova: Retry from last rb tree node if iova search fails":
1215K

Increase IOVA RCACHE range 6 -> 10 (All IOVAs size requests now 
cacheable for this experiment):
1400K

Reduce LLDD max SGE count 124 -> 16:
1288K

non-strict mode
1650K

So ideally we can work towards something for which IOVAs of all size 
could be cached.

Cheers,
John