Re: [PATCH] iommu/iova: Optimise attempts to allocate iova from 32bit address range
From: Robin Murphy
Date: Fri Aug 10 2018 - 05:49:10 EST
On 10/08/18 10:24, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
Hi Robin,
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 2:13 AM, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2018-08-09 6:49 PM, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
Hi Robin,
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 9:54 PM, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 07/08/18 09:54, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
As an optimisation for PCI devices, there is always first attempt
been made to allocate iova from SAC address range. This will lead
to unnecessary attempts/function calls, when there are no free ranges
available.
This patch optimises by adding flag to track previous failed attempts
and avoids further attempts until replenish happens.
Agh, what I overlooked is that this still suffers from the original
problem,
wherein a large allocation which fails due to fragmentation then blocks
all
subsequent smaller allocations, even if they may have succeeded.
For a minimal change, though, what I think we could do is instead of just
having a flag, track the size of the last 32-bit allocation which failed.
If
we're happy to assume that nobody's likely to mix aligned and unaligned
allocations within the same domain, then that should be sufficiently
robust
whilst being no more complicated than this version, i.e. (modulo thinking
up
a better name for it):
I agree, it would be better to track size and attempt to allocate for
smaller chunks, if not for bigger one.
Signed-off-by: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <ganapatrao.kulkarni@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
This patch is based on comments from Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx>
for patch [1]
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/19/780
drivers/iommu/iova.c | 11 ++++++++++-
include/linux/iova.h | 1 +
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iova.c b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
index 83fe262..d97bb5a 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/iova.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
@@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ init_iova_domain(struct iova_domain *iovad, unsigned
long granule,
iovad->granule = granule;
iovad->start_pfn = start_pfn;
iovad->dma_32bit_pfn = 1UL << (32 - iova_shift(iovad));
+ iovad->free_32bit_pfns = true;
iovad->max_32bit_free = iovad->dma_32bit_pfn;
iovad->flush_cb = NULL;
iovad->fq = NULL;
iovad->anchor.pfn_lo = iovad->anchor.pfn_hi = IOVA_ANCHOR;
@@ -139,8 +140,10 @@ __cached_rbnode_delete_update(struct iova_domain
*iovad, struct iova *free)
cached_iova = rb_entry(iovad->cached32_node, struct iova,
node);
if (free->pfn_hi < iovad->dma_32bit_pfn &&
- free->pfn_lo >= cached_iova->pfn_lo)
+ free->pfn_lo >= cached_iova->pfn_lo) {
iovad->cached32_node = rb_next(&free->node);
+ iovad->free_32bit_pfns = true;
iovad->max_32bit_free = iovad->dma_32bit_pfn;
i think, you intended to say,
iovad->max_32bit_free += (free->pfn_hi - free->pfn_lo);
Nope, that's why I said it needed a better name ;)
(I nearly called it last_failed_32bit_alloc_size, but that's a bit much)
may be we can name it "max32_alloc_size"?
The point of this value (whetever it's called) is that at any given time it
holds an upper bound on the size of the largest contiguous free area. It
doesn't have to be the *smallest* upper bound, which is why we can keep
things simple and avoid arithmetic - in realistic use-cases like yours when
the allocations are a pretty constant size, this should work out directly
equivalent to the boolean, only with values of "size" and "dma_32bit_pfn"
instead of 0 and 1, so we don't do any more work than necessary. In the edge
cases where allocations are all different sizes, it does mean that we will
probably end up performing more failing allocations than if we actually
tried to track all of the free space exactly, but I think that's reasonable
- just because I want to make sure we handle such cases fairly gracefully,
doesn't mean that we need to do extra work on the typical fast path to try
and actually optimise for them (which is why I didn't really like the
accounting implementation I came up with).
ok got it, thanks for the explanation.
+ }
cached_iova = rb_entry(iovad->cached_node, struct iova, node);
if (free->pfn_lo >= cached_iova->pfn_lo)
@@ -290,6 +293,10 @@ alloc_iova(struct iova_domain *iovad, unsigned long
size,
struct iova *new_iova;
int ret;
+ if (limit_pfn <= iovad->dma_32bit_pfn &&
+ !iovad->free_32bit_pfns)
size >= iovad->max_32bit_free)
+ return NULL;
+
new_iova = alloc_iova_mem();
if (!new_iova)
return NULL;
@@ -299,6 +306,8 @@ alloc_iova(struct iova_domain *iovad, unsigned long
size,
if (ret) {
free_iova_mem(new_iova);
+ if (limit_pfn <= iovad->dma_32bit_pfn)
+ iovad->free_32bit_pfns = false;
iovad->max_32bit_free = size;
same here, we should decrease available free range after successful
allocation.
iovad->max_32bit_free -= size;
Equivalently, the simple assignment is strictly decreasing the upper bound
already, since we can only get here if size < max_32bit_free in the first
place. One more thing I've realised is that this is all potentially a bit
racy as we're outside the lock here, so it might need to be pulled into
__alloc_and_insert_iova_range(), something like the rough diff below (name
changed again for the sake of it; it also occurs to me that we don't really
need to re-check limit_pfn in the failure path either, because even a 64-bit
allocation still has to walk down through the 32-bit space in order to fail
completely)
What do you think?
most likely this should work, i will try this and confirm at the earliest,
Thanks for sticking with this.
Robin.
----->8-----
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iova.c b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
index 83fe2621effe..7cbc58885877 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/iova.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
@@ -190,6 +190,10 @@ static int __alloc_and_insert_iova_range(struct
iova_domain *iovad,
/* Walk the tree backwards */
spin_lock_irqsave(&iovad->iova_rbtree_lock, flags);
+ if (limit_pfn <= iovad->dma_32bit_pfn &&
+ size >= iovad->failed_alloc_size)
+ goto out_err;
+
curr = __get_cached_rbnode(iovad, limit_pfn);
curr_iova = rb_entry(curr, struct iova, node);
do {
@@ -200,10 +204,8 @@ static int __alloc_and_insert_iova_range(struct
iova_domain *iovad,
curr_iova = rb_entry(curr, struct iova, node);
} while (curr && new_pfn <= curr_iova->pfn_hi);
- if (limit_pfn < size || new_pfn < iovad->start_pfn) {
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&iovad->iova_rbtree_lock, flags);
- return -ENOMEM;
- }
+ if (limit_pfn < size || new_pfn < iovad->start_pfn)
+ goto out_err;
/* pfn_lo will point to size aligned address if size_aligned is set
*/
new->pfn_lo = new_pfn;
@@ -214,9 +216,12 @@ static int __alloc_and_insert_iova_range(struct
iova_domain *iovad,
__cached_rbnode_insert_update(iovad, new);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&iovad->iova_rbtree_lock, flags);
-
-
return 0;
+
+out_err:
+ iovad->failed_alloc_size = size;
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&iovad->iova_rbtree_lock, flags);
+ return -ENOMEM;
}
static struct kmem_cache *iova_cache;
cant we bump up the size when ranges are freed? otherwise we never be
able to attempt in 32bit range, even there is enough replenish.
Oh, I just left that part out of the example for clarity, since it's
already under the lock - I didn't mean to suggest that that we should
remove it!
(I was just too lazy to actually apply your patch to generate a real
diff on top of it)
Robin.
@@ -139,8 +139,10 @@ __cached_rbnode_delete_update(struct iova_domain
*iovad, struct iova *free)
cached_iova = rb_entry(iovad->cached32_node, struct iova, node);
if (free->pfn_hi < iovad->dma_32bit_pfn &&
- free->pfn_lo >= cached_iova->pfn_lo)
+ free->pfn_lo >= cached_iova->pfn_lo) {
iovad->cached32_node = rb_next(&free->node);
+ iovad->failed_alloc_size += (free->pfn_hi - free->pfn_lo);
+ }