[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240430150950.GD14187@willie-the-truck>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:09:50 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Tanmay Jagdale <tanmay@...vell.com>
Cc: robin.murphy@....com, joro@...tes.org, nicolinc@...dia.com,
mshavit@...gle.com, baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com,
thunder.leizhen@...wei.com, set_pte_at@...look.com,
smostafa@...gle.com, sgoutham@...vell.com, gcherian@...vell.com,
jcm@...masters.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/2] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add support for ECMDQ register
mode
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 07:41:50AM -0700, Tanmay Jagdale wrote:
> Resending the patches by Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com> that add
> support for SMMU ECMDQ feature.
>
> Tested this feature on a Marvell SoC by implementing a smmu-test driver.
> This test driver spawns a thread per CPU and each thread keeps sending
> map, table-walk and unmap requests for a fixed duration.
>
> Using this test driver, we compared ECMDQ vs SMMU with software batching
> support and saw ~5% improvement with ECMDQ. Performance numbers are
> mentioned below:
>
> Total Requests Average Requests Difference
> Per CPU wrt ECMDQ
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> ECMDQ 239286381 2991079
> CMDQ Batch Size 1 228232187 2852902 -4.62%
> CMDQ Batch Size 32 233465784 2918322 -2.43%
> CMDQ Batch Size 64 231679588 2895994 -3.18%
> CMDQ Batch Size 128 233189030 2914862 -2.55%
> CMDQ Batch Size 256 230965773 2887072 -3.48%
These are pretty small improvements in a targetted micro-benchmark. Do
you have any real-world numbers showing that this is worthwhile? For
example, running something like netperf.
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists