Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752237AbdHHMDz (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2017 08:03:55 -0400 Received: from mail-qk0-f194.google.com ([209.85.220.194]:33401 "EHLO mail-qk0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752014AbdHHMDx (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2017 08:03:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <59787A48.6060200@huawei.com> References: <20170726110807.GN15833@8bytes.org> <59787A48.6060200@huawei.com> From: Ganapatrao Kulkarni Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 17:33:52 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Optimise 64-bit IOVA allocations To: "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" Cc: Joerg Roedel , Robin Murphy , Lorenzo Pieralisi , ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, ray.jui@broadcom.com, nwatters@codeaurora.org, Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Ganapatrao Kulkarni Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2705 Lines: 73 On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote: > > > On 2017/7/26 19:08, Joerg Roedel wrote: >> Hi Robin. >> >> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:41:57PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> In the wake of the ARM SMMU optimisation efforts, it seems that certain >>> workloads (e.g. storage I/O with large scatterlists) probably remain quite >>> heavily influenced by IOVA allocation performance. Separately, Ard also >>> reported massive performance drops for a graphical desktop on AMD Seattle >>> when enabling SMMUs via IORT, which we traced to dma_32bit_pfn in the DMA >>> ops domain getting initialised differently for ACPI vs. DT, and exposing >>> the overhead of the rbtree slow path. Whilst we could go around trying to >>> close up all the little gaps that lead to hitting the slowest case, it >>> seems a much better idea to simply make said slowest case a lot less slow. >> >> Do you have some numbers here? How big was the impact before these >> patches and how is it with the patches? > Here are some numbers: > > (before)$ iperf -s > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Server listening on TCP port 5001 > TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default) > ------------------------------------------------------------ > [ 4] local 192.168.1.106 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.198 port 35898 > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth > [ 4] 0.0-10.2 sec 7.88 MBytes 6.48 Mbits/sec > [ 5] local 192.168.1.106 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.198 port 35900 > [ 5] 0.0-10.3 sec 7.88 MBytes 6.43 Mbits/sec > [ 4] local 192.168.1.106 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.198 port 35902 > [ 4] 0.0-10.3 sec 7.88 MBytes 6.43 Mbits/sec > > (after)$ iperf -s > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Server listening on TCP port 5001 > TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default) > ------------------------------------------------------------ > [ 4] local 192.168.1.106 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.198 port 36330 > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth > [ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.09 GBytes 933 Mbits/sec > [ 5] local 192.168.1.106 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.198 port 36332 > [ 5] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.10 GBytes 939 Mbits/sec > [ 4] local 192.168.1.106 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.198 port 36334 > [ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.10 GBytes 938 Mbits/sec > Is this testing done on Host or on Guest/VM? >> >> >> Joerg >> >> >> . >> > > -- > Thanks! > BestRegards > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel thanks Ganapat