Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-57927-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 12:56:27 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Howard Yen <howardyen@google.com>
Cc: hch@lst.de, m.szyprowski@samsung.com, robin.murphy@arm.com,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rafael@kernel.org, broonie@kernel.org,
	james@equiv.tech, james.clark@arm.com, masahiroy@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dma-coherent: add support for multi coherent rmems
 per dev
Message-ID: <ZcSzW1kFZIZ_f759@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20240205072312.2342188-1-howardyen@google.com>
 <ZcDPn5eLvMwpb7N1@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <ZcJTkQFcVhcGC52Z@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <CAJDAHvYYUcn2HL1QTSG-KA0QcuAOotk5hY4cpuasOu_H=X-V0A@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAJDAHvYYUcn2HL1QTSG-KA0QcuAOotk5hY4cpuasOu_H=X-V0A@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo

On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 03:53:37PM +0800, Howard Yen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 11:43 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 02:08:00PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 07:23:00AM +0000, Howard Yen wrote:

..

> > > > @@ -18,15 +18,9 @@ struct dma_coherent_mem {
> > > >     unsigned long   *bitmap;
> > > >     spinlock_t      spinlock;
> > > >     bool            use_dev_dma_pfn_offset;
> > > > +   struct list_head        node;
> > >
> > > Have you run `pahole`? Here I see wasted bytes for nothing.
> >
> > On top of that one may make container_of() to be no-op, by placing this member
> > to be the first one. But, double check this with bloat-o-meter (that it indeed
> > does better code generation) and on the other hand check if the current first
> > member is not performance critical and having additional pointer arithmetics is
> > okay.
> >
> > > >  };
> 
> I'm trying to re-org the members as below
> 
> from ===>
> 
> struct dma_coherent_mem {
> void *                     virt_base;            /*     0     8 */
> dma_addr_t                 device_base;          /*     8     8 */
> unsigned long              pfn_base;             /*    16     8 */
> int                        size;                 /*    24     4 */
> 
> /* XXX 4 bytes hole, try to pack */
> 
> unsigned long *            bitmap;               /*    32     8 */
> spinlock_t                 spinlock;             /*    40     4 */
> bool                       use_dev_dma_pfn_offset; /*    44     1 */
> 
> /* XXX 3 bytes hole, try to pack */
> 
> struct list_head           node;                 /*    48    16 */
> 
> /* size: 64, cachelines: 1, members: 8 */
> /* sum members: 57, holes: 2, sum holes: 7 */
> };
> 
> 
> to ===>
> 
> struct dma_coherent_mem {
> struct list_head           node;                 /*     0    16 */
> void *                     virt_base;            /*    16     8 */
> dma_addr_t                 device_base;          /*    24     8 */
> unsigned long              pfn_base;             /*    32     8 */
> int                        size;                 /*    40     4 */
> spinlock_t                 spinlock;             /*    44     4 */
> unsigned long *            bitmap;               /*    48     8 */
> bool                       use_dev_dma_pfn_offset; /*    56     1 */
> 
> /* size: 64, cachelines: 1, members: 8 */
> /* padding: 7 */

Which seems better that above, right?

> };
> 
> Looks like there is about 7 bytes padding at the end of the structure.
> Should I add __attribute__((__packed__)) to not add the padding?

No, __packed is about alignment, may give you much worse code generation.
With list_head member first you might get better code from the original,
check it with bloat-o-meter.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko