lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Use NUMA memory allocations for stream tables and comamnd queues
From
Date
Hi Robin,

On 2017-09-21 13:58, Robin Murphy wrote:
> [+Christoph and Marek]
>
> On 21/09/17 09:59, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
>> Introduce smmu_alloc_coherent and smmu_free_coherent functions to
>> allocate/free dma coherent memory from NUMA node associated with SMMU.
>> Replace all calls of dmam_alloc_coherent with smmu_alloc_coherent
>> for SMMU stream tables and command queues.
> This doesn't work - not only do you lose the 'managed' aspect and risk
> leaking various tables on probe failure or device removal, but more
> importantly, unless you add DMA syncs around all the CPU accesses to the
> tables, you lose the critical 'coherent' aspect, and that's a horribly
> invasive change that I really don't want to make.
>
> Christoph, Marek; how reasonable do you think it is to expect
> dma_alloc_coherent() to be inherently NUMA-aware on NUMA-capable
> systems? SWIOTLB looks fairly straightforward to fix up (for the simple
> allocation case; I'm not sure it's even worth it for bounce-buffering),
> but the likes of CMA might be a little trickier...

I'm not sure if there is any dma-coherent implementation that is NUMA aware.

Maybe author should provide some benchmarks, which show that those
structures
should be allocated in NUMA-aware way?

On the other hand it is not that hard to add required dma_sync_* calls
around
all the code which updated those tables.

> ...

Best regards
--
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-29 14:15    [W:0.180 / U:0.956 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site