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:   Mon, 12 Jun 2023 23:52:46 +0200
From:   Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@redhat.com>
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc:     Daniel Golle <daniel@makrotopia.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>,
        Mark Lee <Mark-MC.Lee@mediatek.com>,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>,
        John Crispin <john@phrozen.org>, Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Sam Shih <Sam.Shih@mediatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/8] net: ethernet: mtk_eth_soc: move MAX_DEVS
 in mtk_soc_data
Message-ID: <ZIeTrjCsyQSiCnsr@lore-desk>
References: <ZIUWxQ9H7hNSd6rJ@makrotopia.org>
 <ZIb6604WRJsevaWN@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+jV/BeWnWuWrIw8B"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZIb6604WRJsevaWN@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk


--+jV/BeWnWuWrIw8B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 01:35:17AM +0100, Daniel Golle wrote:
> > @@ -1106,14 +1105,14 @@ struct mtk_eth {
> >  	spinlock_t			tx_irq_lock;
> >  	spinlock_t			rx_irq_lock;
> >  	struct net_device		dummy_dev;
> > -	struct net_device		*netdev[MTK_MAX_DEVS];
> > -	struct mtk_mac			*mac[MTK_MAX_DEVS];
> > +	struct net_device		**netdev;
> > +	struct mtk_mac			**mac;
> >  	int				irq[3];
> >  	u32				msg_enable;
> >  	unsigned long			sysclk;
> >  	struct regmap			*ethsys;
> >  	struct regmap			*infra;
> > -	struct phylink_pcs		*sgmii_pcs[MTK_MAX_DEVS];
> > +	struct phylink_pcs		**sgmii_pcs;
> >  	struct regmap			*pctl;
> >  	bool				hwlro;
> >  	refcount_t			dma_refcnt;
>=20
> Is it really worth the extra allocations?
>=20
> There's three pointers here per device. Let's talk about modern systems,
> so that's 8 bytes each, and if MTK_MAX_DEVS was two, that's 48 bytes in
> all. If we expanded the array to allow three, that would be 72 bytes.
>=20
> If we allocate separately, then we're allocating 16 or 24 bytes three
> times depending on whether we want two or three of them.
>=20
> On arm64, I'm seeing the minimum slab size as 128 bytes, which means
> that's the minimum memory allocation. So, allocating three arrays will
> be 384 bytes in all, irrespective of whether we want two or three
> entries.
>=20
> That's a waste of about 5x the memory over just expanding the arrays!

ack, I agree. I will fix it.

Regards,
Lorenzo

>=20
> If you want to go down the route of dynamically allocating these, it
> would make better sense to combine them into a single structure that
> itself is an array, and thus requiring only one allocation. That
> reduces the wastage to about 56 bytes for three ports or 80 bytes
> for two.
>=20
> Thanks.
>=20
> --=20
> RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
> FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
>=20

--+jV/BeWnWuWrIw8B
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYKAB0WIQTquNwa3Txd3rGGn7Y6cBh0uS2trAUCZIeTrgAKCRA6cBh0uS2t
rNj4AP9deO0Gr7/2QBPFl0zwa5owkvBsU7Fw1f3Xo0VOcoEEOQEApfOn/gVjmHQW
s9GY/xg59Fhdvwhh8lfHmXEvgidsqAg=
=V5g1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--+jV/BeWnWuWrIw8B--