[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bebc7b1b-e60c-d5e6-812a-63580d7029cc@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2021 11:22:15 +0100
From: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To: <will@...nel.org>, <robin.murphy@....com>
CC: <joro@...tes.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linuxarm@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Remove some unneeded init in
arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist()
On 21/06/2021 17:36, John Garry wrote:
> Members of struct "llq" will be zero-inited, apart from member max_n_shift.
> But we write llq.val straight after the init, so it was pointless to zero
> init those other members. As such, separately init member max_n_shift
> only.
>
> In addition, struct "head" is initialised to "llq" only so that member
> max_n_shift is set. But that member is never referenced for "head", so
> remove any init there.
>
> Removing these initializations is seen as a small performance optimisation,
> as this code is (very) hot path.
>
Hi Will,
Any chance you can pick up this small optimisation?
Cheers
> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> index 54b2f27b81d4..8a8ad49bb7fd 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> @@ -727,11 +727,11 @@ static int arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
> unsigned long flags;
> bool owner;
> struct arm_smmu_cmdq *cmdq = &smmu->cmdq;
> - struct arm_smmu_ll_queue llq = {
> - .max_n_shift = cmdq->q.llq.max_n_shift,
> - }, head = llq;
> + struct arm_smmu_ll_queue llq, head;
> int ret = 0;
>
> + llq.max_n_shift = cmdq->q.llq.max_n_shift;
> +
> /* 1. Allocate some space in the queue */
> local_irq_save(flags);
> llq.val = READ_ONCE(cmdq->q.llq.val);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists