lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 0/7] Add non-strict mode support for iommu-dma
Date
On 21/09/2018 12:03, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 21/09/18 10:29, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> Hi John,
>>
>> On 2018-09-21 10:20 AM, John Garry wrote:
>>> On 20/09/2018 17:10, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully this is the last spin of the series - I've now dropped my
>>>> light
>>>> touch and fixed up all the various prose text, plus implemented the
>>>> proper
>>>> quirk support for short-descriptor because it's actually just a trivial
>>>> cut-and-paste job.
>>>>
>>>> Robin.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Robin,
>>>
>>> JFYI, I'm trying to test this patchset to get some figures and
>>> provide a tested-by tag, but 4/8 seems to rely on
>>> "iommu/io-pgtable-arm: Fix race handling in split_blk_unmap()" - more
>>> specifically, it seems to rely on the version which Will rewrote in
>>> your patch review, and I am not sure on what branch it exists on, if
>>> any.
>>
>> Sorry, I should have said this is based on Will's iommu/devel branch:
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/will/linux.git/log/?h=iommu/devel
>
>
> FWIW I've now pushed out a complete branch here:
>
> git://linux-arm.org/linux-rm iommu/non-strict
>

Cheers

So for my network test scenario I was getting a boost @ 250K vs 160K
packet(s)/second with strict off/on

For NVMe single disk performance, I was getting a boost @ 582K vs 370K
IOPS with strict off/on.

I wasn't seeing such a boost for other storage controller scenario
(that's with 6 SSDs), with 776K vs 740K IOPS for strict off/on, but SMMU
off was ~800K IOPS.

FWIW:
Tested-by: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>

Thanks,
John

>
> Robin.
>
> .
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-24 16:36    [W:0.775 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site