Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: mvneta: Convert to be 64 bits compatible
From: Arnd Bergmann
Date: Thu Nov 24 2016 - 04:01:36 EST
On Thursday, November 24, 2016 4:37:36 PM CET Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> solB (a SW shadow cookie) perhaps gives a better performance: in hot path,
> such as mvneta_rx(), the driver accesses buf_cookie and buf_phys_addr of
> rx_desc which is allocated by dma_alloc_coherent, it's noncacheable if the
> device isn't cache-coherent. I didn't measure the performance difference,
> because in fact we take solA as well internally. From your experience,
> can the performance gain deserve the complex code?
Yes, a read from uncached memory is fairly slow, so if you have a chance
to avoid that it will probably help. When adding complexity to the code,
it probably makes sense to take a runtime profile anyway quantify how
much it gains.
On machines that have cache-coherent DMA, accessing the descriptor
should be fine, as you already have to load the entire cache line
to read the status field.
Looking at this snippet:
rx_status = rx_desc->status;
rx_bytes = rx_desc->data_size - (ETH_FCS_LEN + MVNETA_MH_SIZE);
data = (unsigned char *)rx_desc->buf_cookie;
phys_addr = rx_desc->buf_phys_addr;
pool_id = MVNETA_RX_GET_BM_POOL_ID(rx_desc);
bm_pool = &pp->bm_priv->bm_pools[pool_id];
if (!mvneta_rxq_desc_is_first_last(rx_status) ||
(rx_status & MVNETA_RXD_ERR_SUMMARY)) {
err_drop_frame_ret_pool:
/* Return the buffer to the pool */
mvneta_bm_pool_put_bp(pp->bm_priv, bm_pool,
rx_desc->buf_phys_addr);
err_drop_frame:
I think there is more room for optimizing if you start: you read
the status field twice (the second one in MVNETA_RX_GET_BM_POOL_ID)
and you can cache the buf_phys_addr along with the virtual address
once you add that.
Generally speaking, I'd recommend using READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE()
to access the descriptor fields, to ensure the compiler doesn't
add extra references as well as to annotate the expensive
operations.
Arnd