Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Improve swiotlb performance by using physicaladdresses
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
Date: Thu Oct 04 2012 - 09:07:07 EST
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 05:38:41PM -0700, 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 the fact that virtual to physical
> address translation and calling the function that did it. It accounted for
> nearly 60% of the total overhead.
>
> This patch set works to resolve that by changing the io_tlb_start address and
> io_tlb_overflow_buffer address from virtual addresses to physical addresses.
> By doing this, devices that are not making use of bounce buffers can
> significantly reduce their overhead. In addition I followed through with the
.. but are still using SWIOTLB for their DMA operations, right?
> 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.
>
> When running a routing throughput test using small packets I saw roughly a 5%
> 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 10.29Mps
> # Overhead Symbol
> # ........ ...........................................................................................................
> #
> 1.97% [k] __phys_addr
> |
> |--24.97%-- swiotlb_sync_single
> |
> |--16.55%-- is_swiotlb_buffer
> |
> |--11.25%-- unmap_single
> |
> --2.71%-- swiotlb_dma_mapping_error
> 1.66% [k] swiotlb_sync_single
> 1.45% [k] is_swiotlb_buffer
> 0.53% [k] unmap_single
> 0.52% [k] swiotlb_map_page
> 0.47% [k] swiotlb_sync_single_for_device
> 0.43% [k] swiotlb_sync_single_for_cpu
> 0.42% [k] swiotlb_dma_mapping_error
> 0.34% [k] swiotlb_unmap_page
>
> After:
> Results 10.99Mps
> # Overhead Symbol
> # ........ ...........................................................................................................
> #
> 0.50% [k] swiotlb_map_page
> 0.50% [k] swiotlb_sync_single
> 0.36% [k] swiotlb_sync_single_for_cpu
> 0.35% [k] swiotlb_sync_single_for_device
> 0.25% [k] swiotlb_unmap_page
> 0.17% [k] swiotlb_dma_mapping_error
>
> ---
>
> Alexander Duyck (7):
> swiotlb: Do not export swiotlb_bounce since there are no external consumers
> swiotlb: Use physical addresses instead of virtual in swiotlb_tbl_sync_single
> swiotlb: Use physical addresses for swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single
> swiotlb: Return physical addresses when calling swiotlb_tbl_map_single
> swiotlb: Make io_tlb_overflow_buffer a physical address
> swiotlb: Make io_tlb_start a physical address instead of a virtual address
> swiotlb: Instead of tracking the end of the swiotlb region just calculate it
>
>
> drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c | 25 ++---
> include/linux/swiotlb.h | 20 ++--
> lib/swiotlb.c | 247 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> 3 files changed, 150 insertions(+), 142 deletions(-)
>
> --
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/