[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJDAHvYYUcn2HL1QTSG-KA0QcuAOotk5hY4cpuasOu_H=X-V0A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 15:53:37 +0800
From: Howard Yen <howardyen@...gle.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: hch@....de, m.szyprowski@...sung.com, robin.murphy@....com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rafael@...nel.org, broonie@...nel.org,
james@...iv.tech, james.clark@....com, masahiroy@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dma-coherent: add support for multi coherent rmems per dev
On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 11:43 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 02:08:00PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 07:23:00AM +0000, Howard Yen wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > @@ -18,15 +18,9 @@ struct dma_coherent_mem {
> > > unsigned long *bitmap;
> > > spinlock_t spinlock;
> > > bool use_dev_dma_pfn_offset;
> > > + struct list_head node;
> >
> > Have you run `pahole`? Here I see wasted bytes for nothing.
>
> On top of that one may make container_of() to be no-op, by placing this member
> to be the first one. But, double check this with bloat-o-meter (that it indeed
> does better code generation) and on the other hand check if the current first
> member is not performance critical and having additional pointer arithmetics is
> okay.
>
> > > };
>
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>
I'm trying to re-org the members as below
from ===>
struct dma_coherent_mem {
void * virt_base; /* 0 8 */
dma_addr_t device_base; /* 8 8 */
unsigned long pfn_base; /* 16 8 */
int size; /* 24 4 */
/* XXX 4 bytes hole, try to pack */
unsigned long * bitmap; /* 32 8 */
spinlock_t spinlock; /* 40 4 */
bool use_dev_dma_pfn_offset; /* 44 1 */
/* XXX 3 bytes hole, try to pack */
struct list_head node; /* 48 16 */
/* size: 64, cachelines: 1, members: 8 */
/* sum members: 57, holes: 2, sum holes: 7 */
};
to ===>
struct dma_coherent_mem {
struct list_head node; /* 0 16 */
void * virt_base; /* 16 8 */
dma_addr_t device_base; /* 24 8 */
unsigned long pfn_base; /* 32 8 */
int size; /* 40 4 */
spinlock_t spinlock; /* 44 4 */
unsigned long * bitmap; /* 48 8 */
bool use_dev_dma_pfn_offset; /* 56 1 */
/* size: 64, cachelines: 1, members: 8 */
/* padding: 7 */
};
Looks like there is about 7 bytes padding at the end of the structure.
Should I add __attribute__((__packed__)) to not add the padding?
--
Regards,
Howard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists