[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240627060251.GA15590@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 08:02:51 +0200
From: "hch@....de" <hch@....de>
To: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com>
Cc: "robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"jgross@...e.com" <jgross@...e.com>,
"sstabellini@...nel.org" <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
"oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com" <oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com>,
"hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
"m.szyprowski@...sung.com" <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
"petr@...arici.cz" <petr@...arici.cz>,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] swiotlb: Reduce calls to swiotlb_find_pool()
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 11:58:13PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote:
> > This patch trades off making many of the core swiotlb APIs take
> > an additional argument in order to avoid duplicating calls to
> > swiotlb_find_pool(). The current code seems rather wasteful in
> > making 6 calls per round-trip, but I'm happy to accept others'
> > judgment as to whether getting rid of the waste is worth the
> > additional code complexity.
>
> Quick ping on this RFC. Is there any interest in moving forward?
> Quite a few lines of code are affected because of adding the
> additional "pool" argument to several functions, but the change
> is conceptually pretty simple.
Yes, this looks sensible to me. I'm tempted to apply it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists