Re: [PATCH] MMIO should have more priority then IO
From: H. Peter Anvin
Date: Wed Jun 29 2022 - 02:38:28 EST
On June 28, 2022 11:12:41 PM PDT, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 09:59:21PM +0530, Ajay Kaher wrote:
>> Port IO instructions (PIO) are less efficient than MMIO (memory
>> mapped I/O). They require twice as many PCI accesses and PIO
>> instructions are serializing. As a result, MMIO should be preferred
>> when possible over PIO.
>>
>> Bare metal test result
>> 1 million reads using raw_pci_read() took:
>> PIO: 0.433153 Sec.
>> MMIO: 0.268792 Sec.
>>
>> Virtual Machine test result
>> 1 hundred thousand reads using raw_pci_read() took:
>> PIO: 12.809 Sec.
>> MMIO: took 8.517 Sec.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ajay Kaher <akaher@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/pci/common.c | 8 ++++----
>> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/common.c b/arch/x86/pci/common.c
>> index 3507f456f..0b3383d9c 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/pci/common.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/common.c
>> @@ -40,20 +40,20 @@ const struct pci_raw_ops *__read_mostly raw_pci_ext_ops;
>> int raw_pci_read(unsigned int domain, unsigned int bus, unsigned int devfn,
>> int reg, int len, u32 *val)
>> {
>> + if (raw_pci_ext_ops)
>> + return raw_pci_ext_ops->read(domain, bus, devfn, reg, len, val);
>> if (domain == 0 && reg < 256 && raw_pci_ops)
>> return raw_pci_ops->read(domain, bus, devfn, reg, len, val);
>> - if (raw_pci_ext_ops)
>> - return raw_pci_ext_ops->read(domain, bus, devfn, reg, len, val);
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> int raw_pci_write(unsigned int domain, unsigned int bus, unsigned int devfn,
>> int reg, int len, u32 val)
>> {
>> + if (raw_pci_ext_ops)
>> + return raw_pci_ext_ops->write(domain, bus, devfn, reg, len, val);
>> if (domain == 0 && reg < 256 && raw_pci_ops)
>> return raw_pci_ops->write(domain, bus, devfn, reg, len, val);
>> - if (raw_pci_ext_ops)
>> - return raw_pci_ext_ops->write(domain, bus, devfn, reg, len, val);
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> --
>> 2.30.0
>>
>
><formletter>
>
>This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
>stable kernel tree. Please read:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
>for how to do this properly.
>
></formletter>
The statement in the header is also incorrect.