linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 00/17] Provide a new two step DMA mapping API

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: <20241031092113.GA1791@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:21:13 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>, Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
	Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...dia.com>,
	Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
	Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/17] Provide a new two step DMA mapping API

On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 11:05:30AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> This series is a subset of the series you tested and doesn't include the
> block layer changes which most likely were the cause of the performance
> regression.
> 
> This is why I separated the block layer changes from the rest of the series
> and marked them as RFC.
> 
> The current patch set is viable for HMM and VFIO. Can you please retest
> only this series and leave the block layer changes for later till Christoph
> finds the answer for the performance regression?

As the subset doesn't touch block code or code called by block I don't
think we need Jens to benchmark it, unless he really wants to.