[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V4 10/11] xen/arm: io: Use binary search for mmio handler lookup
Hi Shanker, On 14/07/16 17:18, Shanker Donthineni wrote: As the number of I/O handlers increase, the overhead associated with linear lookup also increases. The system might have maximum of 144 (assuming CONFIG_NR_CPUS=128) mmio handlers. In worst case scenario, it would require 144 iterations for finding a matching handler. Now it is time for us to change from linear (complexity O(n)) to a binary search (complexity O(log n) for reducing mmio handler lookup overhead. Signed-off-by: Shanker Donthineni <shankerd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Changes since v3: Moved the function bsearch() to common file xen/common/bsearch.c. Changes since v2: Converted mmio lookup code to a critical section. Copied the function bsreach() from Linux kernel. xen/arch/arm/io.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/io.c b/xen/arch/arm/io.c index 40330f0..0471ba8 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/io.c +++ b/xen/arch/arm/io.c @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@ #include <xen/lib.h> #include <xen/spinlock.h> #include <xen/sched.h> +#include <xen/sort.h> +#include <xen/bsearch.h> #include <asm/current.h> #include <asm/mmio.h> @@ -70,27 +72,29 @@ static int handle_write(const struct mmio_handler *handler, struct vcpu *v, handler->priv); } -static const struct mmio_handler *find_mmio_handler(struct domain *d, - paddr_t gpa) +static int cmp_mmio_handler(const void *key, const void *elem) Would it be worth to mention in a comment that we don't support overlapping? { - const struct mmio_handler *handler; - unsigned int i; - struct vmmio *vmmio = &d->arch.vmmio; + const struct mmio_handler *handler0 = key; + const struct mmio_handler *handler1 = elem; - read_lock(&vmmio->lock); + if ( handler0->addr < handler1->addr ) + return -1; - for ( i = 0; i < vmmio->num_entries; i++ ) - { - handler = &vmmio->handlers[i]; + if ( handler0->addr > (handler1->addr + handler1->size) ) + return 1; - if ( (gpa >= handler->addr) && - (gpa < (handler->addr + handler->size)) ) - break; - } + return 0; +} - if ( i == vmmio->num_entries ) - handler = NULL; +static const struct mmio_handler *find_mmio_handler(struct vcpu *v, paddr_t gpa) Why have you changed the prototype of find_mmio_handler? +{ + struct vmmio *vmmio = &v->domain->arch.vmmio; + struct mmio_handler key = {.addr = gpa}; I know it is not currently the case, but should not we take into account the size of the access? + const struct mmio_handler *handler; + read_lock(&vmmio->lock); + handler = bsearch(&key, vmmio->handlers, vmmio->num_entries, + sizeof(*handler), cmp_mmio_handler); read_unlock(&vmmio->lock); return handler; @@ -99,9 +103,9 @@ static const struct mmio_handler *find_mmio_handler(struct domain *d, int handle_mmio(mmio_info_t *info) { struct vcpu *v = current; - const struct mmio_handler *handler = NULL; + const struct mmio_handler *handler; Why this change? - handler = find_mmio_handler(v->domain, info->gpa); + handler = find_mmio_handler(v, info->gpa); ditto. if ( !handler ) return 0; @@ -131,6 +135,10 @@ void register_mmio_handler(struct domain *d, vmmio->num_entries++; + /* Sort mmio handlers in ascending order based on base address */ + sort(vmmio->handlers, vmmio->num_entries, sizeof(struct mmio_handler), + cmp_mmio_handler, NULL); The indentation looks wrong here. + write_unlock(&vmmio->lock); } -- Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |