[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YSOXwdLgeY1ti8ZO@enceladus>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 15:42:41 +0300
From: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>
To: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, hawk@...nel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
hkallweit1@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/2] page_pool: optimize the cpu sync
operation when DMA mapping
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:56:48AM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> On 2021/8/20 17:39, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 02:56:51PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> >> If the DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC is not set, cpu syncing is
> >> also done in dma_map_page_attrs(), so set the attrs according
> >> to pool->p.flags to avoid calling cpu sync function again.
> >
> > Isn't DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC checked within dma_map_page_attrs() anyway?
>
> Yes, the checking in dma_map_page_attrs() should save us from
> calling dma_sync_single_for_device() again if we set the attrs
> according to "pool->p.flags & PP_FLAG_DMA_SYNC_DEV".
But we aren't syncing anything right now when we allocate the pages since
this is called with DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC. We are syncing the allocated
range on the end of the function, if the pool was created and was requested
to take care of the mappings for us.
>
> As dma_sync_single_for_device() is EXPORT_SYMBOL()'ed, and
> should be a no-op for dma coherent device, so there may be a
> function calling overhead for dma coherent device, letting
> dma_map_page_attrs() handling the sync seems to avoid the stack
> pushing/poping overhead:
>
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/kernel/dma/direct.h#L104
>
> The one thing I am not sure about is that the pool->p.offset
> and pool->p.max_len are used to decide the sync range before this
> patch, while the sync range is the same as the map range when doing
> the sync in dma_map_page_attrs().
I am not sure I am following here. We always sync the entire range as well
in the current code as the mapping function is called with max_len.
>
> I assumed the above is not a issue? only sync more than we need?
> and it won't hurt the performance?
We can sync more than we need, but if it's a non-coherent architecture,
there's a performance penalty.
Regards
/Ilias
>
> >
> > Regards
> > /Ilias
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
> >> ---
> >> net/core/page_pool.c | 9 +++++----
> >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/net/core/page_pool.c b/net/core/page_pool.c
> >> index 1a69784..3df5554 100644
> >> --- a/net/core/page_pool.c
> >> +++ b/net/core/page_pool.c
> >> @@ -191,8 +191,12 @@ static void page_pool_dma_sync_for_device(struct page_pool *pool,
> >>
> >> static bool page_pool_dma_map(struct page_pool *pool, struct page *page)
> >> {
> >> + unsigned long attrs = DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC;
> >> dma_addr_t dma;
> >>
> >> + if (pool->p.flags & PP_FLAG_DMA_SYNC_DEV)
> >> + attrs = 0;
> >> +
> >> /* Setup DMA mapping: use 'struct page' area for storing DMA-addr
> >> * since dma_addr_t can be either 32 or 64 bits and does not always fit
> >> * into page private data (i.e 32bit cpu with 64bit DMA caps)
> >> @@ -200,15 +204,12 @@ static bool page_pool_dma_map(struct page_pool *pool, struct page *page)
> >> */
> >> dma = dma_map_page_attrs(pool->p.dev, page, 0,
> >> (PAGE_SIZE << pool->p.order),
> >> - pool->p.dma_dir, DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC);
> >> + pool->p.dma_dir, attrs);
> >> if (dma_mapping_error(pool->p.dev, dma))
> >> return false;
> >>
> >> page_pool_set_dma_addr(page, dma);
> >>
> >> - if (pool->p.flags & PP_FLAG_DMA_SYNC_DEV)
> >> - page_pool_dma_sync_for_device(pool, page, pool->p.max_len);
> >> -
> >> return true;
> >> }
> >>
> >> --
> >> 2.7.4
> >>
> > .
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists