[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH 09/15] swiotlb: make the swiotlb_init interface more useful
On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 08:21:41PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 11:11:57AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 07:57:43PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 10:46:54AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 07:34:41PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > Can you send me the full dmesg and the content of > > > > > /sys/kernel/debug/swiotlb/io_tlb_nslabs for a good and a bad boot? > > > > > > > > Sure thing, they are attached! If there is anything else I can provide > > > > or test, I am more than happy to do so. > > > > > > Nothing interesting. But the performance numbers almost look like > > > swiotlb=force got ignored before (even if I can't explain why). > > > > I was able to get my performance back with this diff but I don't know if > > this is a hack or a proper fix in the context of the series. > > This looks good, but needs a little tweak. I'd go for this variant of > it: Tested-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks a lot for the quick fix! > diff --git a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c > index dfa1de89dc944..cb50f8d383606 100644 > --- a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c > +++ b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c > @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ void __init swiotlb_update_mem_attributes(void) > } > > static void swiotlb_init_io_tlb_mem(struct io_tlb_mem *mem, phys_addr_t > start, > - unsigned long nslabs, bool late_alloc) > + unsigned long nslabs, unsigned int flags, bool late_alloc) > { > void *vaddr = phys_to_virt(start); > unsigned long bytes = nslabs << IO_TLB_SHIFT, i; > @@ -203,8 +203,7 @@ static void swiotlb_init_io_tlb_mem(struct io_tlb_mem > *mem, phys_addr_t start, > mem->index = 0; > mem->late_alloc = late_alloc; > > - if (swiotlb_force_bounce) > - mem->force_bounce = true; > + mem->force_bounce = swiotlb_force_bounce || (flags & SWIOTLB_FORCE); > > spin_lock_init(&mem->lock); > for (i = 0; i < mem->nslabs; i++) { > @@ -275,8 +274,7 @@ void __init swiotlb_init_remap(bool addressing_limit, > unsigned int flags, > panic("%s: Failed to allocate %zu bytes align=0x%lx\n", > __func__, alloc_size, PAGE_SIZE); > > - swiotlb_init_io_tlb_mem(mem, __pa(tlb), nslabs, false); > - mem->force_bounce = flags & SWIOTLB_FORCE; > + swiotlb_init_io_tlb_mem(mem, __pa(tlb), nslabs, flags, false); > > if (flags & SWIOTLB_VERBOSE) > swiotlb_print_info(); > @@ -348,7 +346,7 @@ int swiotlb_init_late(size_t size, gfp_t gfp_mask, > > set_memory_decrypted((unsigned long)vstart, > (nslabs << IO_TLB_SHIFT) >> PAGE_SHIFT); > - swiotlb_init_io_tlb_mem(mem, virt_to_phys(vstart), nslabs, true); > + swiotlb_init_io_tlb_mem(mem, virt_to_phys(vstart), nslabs, 0, true); > > swiotlb_print_info(); > return 0; > @@ -835,8 +833,8 @@ static int rmem_swiotlb_device_init(struct reserved_mem > *rmem, > > set_memory_decrypted((unsigned long)phys_to_virt(rmem->base), > rmem->size >> PAGE_SHIFT); > - swiotlb_init_io_tlb_mem(mem, rmem->base, nslabs, false); > - mem->force_bounce = true; > + swiotlb_init_io_tlb_mem(mem, rmem->base, nslabs, SWIOTLB_FORCE, > + false); > mem->for_alloc = true; > > rmem->priv = mem; > Cheers, Nathan
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |