Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH ipmi/kcs_bmc v1] ipmi: kcs_bmc: optimize the data buffers allocation | From | "Wang, Haiyue" <> | Date | Fri, 13 Apr 2018 22:10:42 +0800 |
| |
On 2018-04-13 21:50, Corey Minyard wrote: > On 04/07/2018 02:54 AM, Wang, Haiyue wrote: >> Hi Corey, >> >> Since IPMI 2.0 just defined minimum, no maximum: >> >> ---- >> >> KCS/SMIC Input : Required: 40 bytes IPMI Message, minimum >> >> KCS/SMIC Output : Required: 38 bytes IPMI Message, minimum >> > > Yes, though there are practical maximums that are much smaller than > 1000 bytes. > > >> ---- >> >> We can enlarge the block size for avoiding waste, and make our driver >> >> support most worst message size case. And I think this patch make >> checking >> >> simple (from 3 to 1), and the code clean, this is the biggest reason >> I want to >> >> change. The TLB is just memory management study from book, no data to >> >> support access improvement. :) > > I would argue that the way it is now expresses the intent of the code > better > than one allocation split into three parts. Expressing your intent is > more > important than the number of checks and a minuscule performance > improvement. For me it makes the code easier to understand. If you had > a tool that checked for out-of-bounds memory access, then a single > allocation > might not find an overrun between the parts. Smaller allocations tend > to result in less memory fragmentation. > When I wrote the commit, I felt that the message was not so professional, and the reason sounded weak. The driver development is a complex work, needs considering more things, not just one. Thanks for your patience.
> My preference is to leave it as it is. However, it's not that > important, and > if you really want this patch, I can include it. > So leave it as it is, abandon this patch. :-)
BTW, another patch about KCS BMC chip support: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/22/284 Look forward your reviewing, I've tried my best to make it better.
> Thanks, > > -corey > >> >> BR, >> >> Haiyue >> >> >> On 2018-04-07 10:37, Wang, Haiyue wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2018-04-07 05:47, Corey Minyard wrote: >>>> On 03/15/2018 07:20 AM, Haiyue Wang wrote: >>>>> Allocate a continuous memory block for the three KCS data buffers >>>>> with >>>>> related index assignment. >>>> >>>> I'm finally getting to this. >>>> >>>> Is there a reason you want to do this? In general, it's better to >>>> not try to >>>> outsmart your base system. Depending on the memory allocator, in this >>>> case, you might actually use more memory. You probably won't use any >>>> less. >>>> >>> I got this idea from another code review, but that patch allocates >>> 30 more >>> the same size memory block, reducing the devm_kmalloc call will be >>> better. >>> For KCS only have 3, may be the key point is memory waste. >>> >>>> In the original case, you allocate three 1000 byte buffers, >>>> resulting in 3 >>>> 1024 byte slab allocated. >>>> >>>> In the changed case, you will allocate a 3000 byte buffer, >>>> resulting in >>>> a single 4096 byte slab allocation, wasting 1024 more bytes of memory. >>>> >>> As the kcs has memory copy between in/out/kbuffer, put them in the same >>> page will be better ? Such as the same TLB ? (Well, I just got this >>> from book, >>> no real experience of memory accessing performance. And also, I was >>> told >>> that using space to save the time. :-)). >>> >>> Just my stupid thinking. I'm OK to drop this patch if it doesn't >>> help with >>> performance, or something else. >>> >>> BR. >>> Haiyue >>> >>>> -corey >>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Haiyue Wang <haiyue.wang@linux.intel.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c | 10 ++++++---- >>>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c >>>>> b/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c >>>>> index fbfc05e..dc19c0d 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c >>>>> @@ -435,6 +435,7 @@ static const struct file_operations >>>>> kcs_bmc_fops = { >>>>> struct kcs_bmc *kcs_bmc_alloc(struct device *dev, int >>>>> sizeof_priv, u32 channel) >>>>> { >>>>> struct kcs_bmc *kcs_bmc; >>>>> + void *buf; >>>>> kcs_bmc = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*kcs_bmc) + >>>>> sizeof_priv, GFP_KERNEL); >>>>> if (!kcs_bmc) >>>>> @@ -448,11 +449,12 @@ struct kcs_bmc *kcs_bmc_alloc(struct device >>>>> *dev, int sizeof_priv, u32 channel) >>>>> mutex_init(&kcs_bmc->mutex); >>>>> init_waitqueue_head(&kcs_bmc->queue); >>>>> - kcs_bmc->data_in = devm_kmalloc(dev, KCS_MSG_BUFSIZ, >>>>> GFP_KERNEL); >>>>> - kcs_bmc->data_out = devm_kmalloc(dev, KCS_MSG_BUFSIZ, >>>>> GFP_KERNEL); >>>>> - kcs_bmc->kbuffer = devm_kmalloc(dev, KCS_MSG_BUFSIZ, >>>>> GFP_KERNEL); >>>>> - if (!kcs_bmc->data_in || !kcs_bmc->data_out || >>>>> !kcs_bmc->kbuffer) >>>>> + buf = devm_kmalloc_array(dev, 3, KCS_MSG_BUFSIZ, GFP_KERNEL); >>>>> + if (!buf) >>>>> return NULL; >>>>> + kcs_bmc->data_in = buf; >>>>> + kcs_bmc->data_out = buf + KCS_MSG_BUFSIZ; >>>>> + kcs_bmc->kbuffer = buf + KCS_MSG_BUFSIZ * 2; >>>>> kcs_bmc->miscdev.minor = MISC_DYNAMIC_MINOR; >>>>> kcs_bmc->miscdev.name = dev_name(dev); >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
| |