[PATCH v7 RFC 1/3] sparc: Break up monolithic iommu table/lock into finer graularity pools and lock

[Sowmini Varadhan]

On (03/30/15 14:24), Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > +
> > +#define IOMMU_POOL_HASHBITS     4
> > +#define IOMMU_NR_POOLS          (1 << IOMMU_POOL_HASHBITS)
> 
> I don't like those macros. You changed the value from what we had on
> powerpc. It could be that the new values are as good for us but I'd
> like to do a bit differently. Can you make the bits a variable ? Or at
> least an arch-provided macro which we can change later if needed ?

Actuallly, this are just the upper bound (16) on the number of pools.

The actual number is selected by the value passed to the 
iommu_tbl_range_init(), and is not hard-coded (as was the case with
the power-pc code).

Thus powerpc can continue to use 4 pools without any loss of 
generality.

   :
> Let's make it clear that this is for allocation of DMA space only, it
> would thus make my life easier when adapting powerpc to use a different
> names, something like "struct iommu_area" works for me, or "iommu
> alloc_region" .. whatever you fancy the most.
  :
> Why adding the 'arena' prefix ? What was wrong with "pools" in the
> powerpc imlementation ?

for the same reason you want to re-baptize iommu_table above- at
the time, I was doing it to minimize conflicts with existing usage.
But I can rename everything if you like. 

> > +#define IOMMU_LARGE_ALLOC	15
> 
> Make that a variable, here too, the arch might want to tweak it.
> 
> I think 15 is actually not a good value for powerpc with 4k iommu pages
> and 64k PAGE_SIZE, we should make the above some kind of factor of
> PAGE_SHIFT - iommu_page_shift.

Ok.

> > +	/* Sanity check */
> > +	if (unlikely(npages == 0)) {
> > +		printk_ratelimited("npages == 0\n");
> 
> You removed the WARN_ON here which had the nice property of giving you a
> backtrace which points to the offender. The above message alone is
> useless.

yes, the original code was generating checkpatch warnings and errors.
That's why I removed it. 

> I am not certain about the "first unlocked pool"... We take the lock for
> a fairly short amount of time, I have the gut feeling that the cache
> line bouncing introduced by looking at a different pool may well cost
> more than waiting a bit longer. Did do some measurements of that
> optimisation ?

if you are really only taking it for a short amount of time, then
the trylock should just succeed, so there is no cache line bouncing.

But yes, I did instrument it with iperf, and there was lock contention
on the spinlock, which was eliminted by the trylock. 

I'll fix the rest of the variable naming etc nits and send out
a new version later today.

--Sowmini