> From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 10:42 PM
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 14:36:14 +0000
> "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio.h b/drivers/vfio/vfio.h
> > > > > > index f9eb52eb9ed7..fdf2fc73f880 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio.h
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio.h
> > > > > > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ struct vfio_container;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > struct vfio_device_file {
> > > > > > struct vfio_device *device;
> > > > > > + bool access_granted;
> > > > >
> > > > > Should we make this a more strongly defined data type and later move
> > > > > devid (u32) here to partially fill the hole created?
> > > >
> > > > Before your question, let me describe how I place the fields
> > > > of this structure to see if it is common practice. The first two
> > > > fields are static, so they are in the beginning. The access_granted
> > > > is lockless and other fields are protected by locks. So I tried to
> > > > put the lock and the fields it protects closely. So this is why I put
> > > > devid behind iommufd as both are protected by the same lock.
> > >
> > > I think the primary considerations are locality and compactness. Hot
> > > paths data should be within the first cache line of the structure,
> > > related data should share a cache line, and we should use the space
> > > efficiently. What you describe seems largely an aesthetic concern,
> > > which was not evident to me by the segmentation alone.
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > >
> > > > struct vfio_device_file {
> > > > struct vfio_device *device;
> > > > struct vfio_group *group;
> > > >
> > > > bool access_granted;
> > > > spinlock_t kvm_ref_lock; /* protect kvm field */
> > > > struct kvm *kvm;
> > > > struct iommufd_ctx *iommufd; /* protected by struct vfio_device_set::lock */
> > > > u32 devid; /* only valid when iommufd is valid */
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this is being placed towards the front of the data structure
> > > > > for cache line locality given this is a hot path for file operations.
> > > > > But bool types have an implementation dependent size, making them
> > > > > difficult to pack. Also there will be a tendency to want to make this
> > > > > a bit field, which is probably not compatible with the smp lockless
> > > > > operations being used here. We might get in front of these issues if
> > > > > we just define it as a u8 now. Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Not quite get why bit field is going to be incompatible with smp
> > > > lockless operations. Could you elaborate a bit? And should I define
> > > > the access_granted as u8 or "u8:1"?
> > >
> > > Perhaps FUD on my part, but load-acquire type operations have specific
> > > semantics and it's not clear to me that they interest with compiler
> > > generated bit operations. Thanks,
> >
> > I see. How about below?
> >
> > struct vfio_device_file {
> > struct vfio_device *device;
> > struct vfio_group *group;
> > u8 access_granted;
> > u32 devid; /* only valid when iommufd is valid */
> > spinlock_t kvm_ref_lock; /* protect kvm field */
> > struct kvm *kvm;
> > struct iommufd_ctx *iommufd; /* protected by struct vfio_device_set::lock */
> > };
>
> Yep, that's essentially what I was suggesting. Thanks,
Got it. 😊
Regards,
Yi Liu
