Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 22 Jun 2022 03:54:19 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Tianyu Lan <ltykernel@gmail.com>
Cc:     corbet@lwn.net, hch@infradead.org, m.szyprowski@samsung.com,
        robin.murphy@arm.com, paulmck@kernel.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, bp@suse.de, tglx@linutronix.de,
        songmuchun@bytedance.com, rdunlap@infradead.org,
        damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com, michael.h.kelley@microsoft.com,
        kys@microsoft.com, Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@microsoft.com>,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vkuznets@redhat.com,
        wei.liu@kernel.org, parri.andrea@gmail.com,
        thomas.lendacky@amd.com, linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org,
        kirill.shutemov@intel.com, andi.kleen@intel.com,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V4 1/1] swiotlb: Split up single swiotlb lock
Message-ID: <YrL02y/fYxDkDRlA@infradead.org>
References: <20220617144741.921308-1-ltykernel@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220617144741.921308-1-ltykernel@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Thanks,

this looks pretty good to me.  A few comments below:

On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 10:47:41AM -0400, Tianyu Lan wrote:
> +/**
> + * struct io_tlb_area - IO TLB memory area descriptor
> + *
> + * This is a single area with a single lock.
> + *
> + * @used:	The number of used IO TLB block.
> + * @index:	The slot index to start searching in this area for next round.
> + * @lock:	The lock to protect the above data structures in the map and
> + *		unmap calls.
> + */
> +struct io_tlb_area {
> +	unsigned long used;
> +	unsigned int index;
> +	spinlock_t lock;
> +};

This can go into swiotlb.c.

> +void __init swiotlb_adjust_nareas(unsigned int nareas);

And this should be marked static.

> +#define DEFAULT_NUM_AREAS 1

I'd drop this define, the magic 1 and a > 1 comparism seems to
convey how it is used much better as the checks aren't about default
or not, but about larger than one.

I also think that we want some good way to size the default, e.g.
by number of CPUs or memory size.

> +void __init swiotlb_adjust_nareas(unsigned int nareas)
> +{
> +	if (!is_power_of_2(nareas)) {
> +		pr_err("swiotlb: Invalid areas parameter %d.\n", nareas);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	default_nareas = nareas;
> +
> +	pr_info("area num %d.\n", nareas);
> +	/* Round up number of slabs to the next power of 2.
> +	 * The last area is going be smaller than the rest if
> +	 * default_nslabs is not power of two.
> +	 */

Please follow the normal kernel comment style with a /* on its own line.