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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 8 Dec 2020 15:07:50 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <>
To:     Sven Van Asbroeck <>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <>,
        Bryan Whitehead <>,
        Microchip Linux Driver Support <>,
        David S Miller <>,
        netdev <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v1 2/2] lan743x: boost performance: limit PCIe
 bandwidth requirement

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 18:02:30 -0500 Sven Van Asbroeck wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 5:51 PM Andrew Lunn <> wrote:
> > > So I assumed that it's a PCIe dma bandwidth issue, but I could be wrong -
> > > I didn't do any PCIe bandwidth measurements.  
> >
> > Sometimes it is actually cache operations which take all the
> > time. This needs to invalidate the cache, so that when the memory is
> > then accessed, it get fetched from RAM. On SMP machines, cache
> > invalidation can be expensive, due to all the cross CPU operations.
> > I've actually got better performance by building a UP kernel on some
> > low core count ARM CPUs.
> >
> > There are some tricks which can be played. Do you actually need all
> > 9K? Does the descriptor tell you actually how much is used? You can
> > get a nice speed up if you just unmap 64 bytes for a TCP ACK, rather
> > than the full 9K.

Good point!

> Thank you for the suggestion! The original driver developer chose 9K because
> presumably that's the largest frame size supported by the chip.
> Yes, I believe the chip will tell us via the descriptor how much it has
> written, I would have to double-check. I was already looking for a
> "trick" to transfer only the required number of bytes, but I was led to
> believe that dma_map_single() and dma_unmap_single() always needed to match.
> So:
> dma_map_single(9K) followed by dma_unmap_single(9K) is correct, and
> dma_map_single(9K) followed by dma_unmap_single(1500 bytes) means trouble.
> How can we get around that?

You can set DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC and then sync only the part of the
buffer that got written.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists