Re: [PATCH] kernel/resource: optimize find_next_iomem_res

[Chia-I Wu]

On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:41 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 10:36:57PM -0700, Chia-I Wu wrote:
> > We can skip children resources when the parent resource does not cover
> > the range.
> >
> > This should help vmf_insert_* users on x86, such as several DRM drivers.
> > On my AMD Ryzen 5 7520C, when streaming data from cpu memory into amdgpu
> > bo, the throughput goes from 5.1GB/s to 6.6GB/s.  perf report says
> >
> >   34.69%--__do_fault
> >   34.60%--amdgpu_gem_fault
> >   34.00%--ttm_bo_vm_fault_reserved
> >   32.95%--vmf_insert_pfn_prot
> >   25.89%--track_pfn_insert
> >   24.35%--lookup_memtype
> >   21.77%--pat_pagerange_is_ram
> >   20.80%--walk_system_ram_range
> >   17.42%--find_next_iomem_res
> >
> > before this change, and
> >
> >   26.67%--__do_fault
> >   26.57%--amdgpu_gem_fault
> >   25.83%--ttm_bo_vm_fault_reserved
> >   24.40%--vmf_insert_pfn_prot
> >   14.30%--track_pfn_insert
> >   12.20%--lookup_memtype
> >   9.34%--pat_pagerange_is_ram
> >   8.22%--walk_system_ram_range
> >   5.09%--find_next_iomem_res
> >
> > after.
>
> That's great, but why is walk_system_ram_range() being called so often?
>
> Shouldn't that be a "set up the device" only type of thing?  Why hammer
> on "lookup_memtype" when you know the memtype, you just did the same
> thing for the previous frame.
>
> This feels like it could be optimized to just "don't call these things"
> which would make it go faster, right?
>
> What am I missing here, why does this always have to be calculated all
> the time?  Resource mapping changes are rare, if at all, over the
> lifetime of a system uptime.  Constantly calculating something that
> never changes feels odd to me.
Yeah, that would be even better.

I am not familiar with x86 pat code.  I will have to defer that to
those more familiar with the matter.

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h