Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1945975Ab2JLQFD (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:05:03 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:51866 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1945918Ab2JLQFC (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:05:02 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,576,1344236400"; d="scan'208";a="204916342" Message-ID: <50783FB6.3070205@intel.com> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:05:10 -0700 From: Alexander Duyck User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120911 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: konrad.wilk@oracle.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, rob@landley.net, akpm@linux-foundation.org, joerg.roedel@amd.com, bhelgaas@google.com, shuahkhan@gmail.com, fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Improve swiotlb performance by using physical addresses References: <20121011203010.12444.15503.stgit@gitlad.jf.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20121011203010.12444.15503.stgit@gitlad.jf.intel.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2934 Lines: 59 On 10/11/2012 01:34 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote: > While working on 10Gb/s routing performance I found a significant amount of > time was being spent in the swiotlb DMA handler. Further digging found that a > significant amount of this was due to virtual to physical address translation > and calling the function that did it. It accounted for nearly 60% of the > total swiotlb overhead. > > This patch set works to resolve that by replacing the io_tlb_start and > io_tlb_end virtual addresses with a physical addresses. In addition it changes > the io_tlb_overflow_buffer from a virtual to a physical address. I followed > through with the cleanup to the point that the only functions that really > require the virtual address for the DMA buffer are the init, free, and > bounce functions. > > In the case of devices that are using the bounce buffers these patches should > result in only a slight performance gain if any. This is due to the locking > overhead required to map and unmap the buffers. > > In the case of devices that are not making use of bounce buffers these patches > can significantly reduce their overhead. In the case of an ixgbe routing test > for example, these changes result in 7 fewer calls to __phys_addr and > allow is_swiotlb_buffer to become inlined due to a reduction in the number of > instructions. When running a routing throughput test using small packets I > saw roughly a 6% increase in packets rates after applying these patches. This > appears to match up with the CPU overhead reduction I was tracking via perf. > > Before: > Results 10.0Mpps > > After: > Results 10.6Mpps > > Finally, I updated the parameter names for several of the core function calls > as there was some ambiguity in naming. Specifically virtual address pointers > were named dma_addr. When I changed these pointers to physical I instead used > the name tlb_addr as this value represented a physical address in the > io_tlb_start region and is less likely to be confused with a bus address. > > v2: > I reviewed the changes and realized that the first patch that was dropping > io_tlb_end and calculating the value didn't actually gain me much once I had > gone through and translated the rest of the addresses to physical addresses. > As such I have updated the patch so that it instead is converting io_tlb_end > from a virtual address to a physical address. This actually helps to reduce > the overhead for is_swiotlb_buffer and swiotlb_dma_supported by several > instructions. The first three patches were replacing "static char *" with "phys_addr_t" when I should have been using "static phys_addr_t". As such I will submit an updated v3 version on Monday. Thanks, Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/