lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V3 0/2] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add support for ECMDQ register mode
Hi Will,

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 04:09:50PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 07:41:50AM -0700, Tanmay Jagdale wrote:
> > Resending the patches by Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> that add
> > support for SMMU ECMDQ feature.
> >
> > Tested this feature on a Marvell SoC by implementing a smmu-test driver.
> > This test driver spawns a thread per CPU and each thread keeps sending
> > map, table-walk and unmap requests for a fixed duration.
> >
> > Using this test driver, we compared ECMDQ vs SMMU with software batching
> > support and saw ~5% improvement with ECMDQ. Performance numbers are
> > mentioned below:
> >
> > Total Requests Average Requests Difference
> > Per CPU wrt ECMDQ
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > ECMDQ 239286381 2991079
> > CMDQ Batch Size 1 228232187 2852902 -4.62%
> > CMDQ Batch Size 32 233465784 2918322 -2.43%
> > CMDQ Batch Size 64 231679588 2895994 -3.18%
> > CMDQ Batch Size 128 233189030 2914862 -2.55%
> > CMDQ Batch Size 256 230965773 2887072 -3.48%
>
> These are pretty small improvements in a targetted micro-benchmark. Do
> you have any real-world numbers showing that this is worthwhile? For
> example, running something like netperf.
We are running benchmarks on the latest kernel with and without ECMDQ.
We will share the performance numbers and observations here.

With Regards,
Tanmay
>
> Will
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-27 18:29    [W:0.352 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site