2017-04-06 23:58 GMT+08:00 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:52:13PM +0530, Imran Khan wrote:
>> On 4/5/2017 10:13 AM, Imran Khan wrote:
>> >> We may have to revisit this logic and consider L1_CACHE_BYTES the
>> >> _minimum_ of cache line sizes in arm64 systems supported by the kernel.
>> >> Do you have any benchmarks on Cavium boards that would show significant
>> >> degradation with 64-byte L1_CACHE_BYTES vs 128?
>> >>
>> >> For non-coherent DMA, the simplest is to make ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN the
>> >> _maximum_ of the supported systems:
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h
>> >> index 5082b30bc2c0..4b5d7b27edaf 100644
>> >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h
>> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h
>> >> @@ -18,17 +18,17 @@
>> >>
>> >> #include <asm/cachetype.h>
>> >>
>> >> -#define L1_CACHE_SHIFT 7
>> >> +#define L1_CACHE_SHIFT 6
>> >> #define L1_CACHE_BYTES (1 << L1_CACHE_SHIFT)
>> >>
>> >> /*
>> >> * Memory returned by kmalloc() may be used for DMA, so we must make
>> >> - * sure that all such allocations are cache aligned. Otherwise,
>> >> - * unrelated code may cause parts of the buffer to be read into the
>> >> - * cache before the transfer is done, causing old data to be seen by
>> >> - * the CPU.
>> >> + * sure that all such allocations are aligned to the maximum *known*
>> >> + * cache line size on ARMv8 systems. Otherwise, unrelated code may cause
>> >> + * parts of the buffer to be read into the cache before the transfer is
>> >> + * done, causing old data to be seen by the CPU.
>> >> */
>> >> -#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN L1_CACHE_BYTES
>> >> +#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN (128)
>> >>
>> >> #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> >> index 392c67eb9fa6..30bafca1aebf 100644
>> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> >> @@ -976,9 +976,9 @@ void __init setup_cpu_features(void)
>> >> if (!cwg)
>> >> pr_warn("No Cache Writeback Granule information, assuming
>> >> cache line size %d\n",
>> >> cls);
>> >> - if (L1_CACHE_BYTES < cls)
>> >> - pr_warn("L1_CACHE_BYTES smaller than the Cache Writeback Granule (%d < %d)\n",
>> >> - L1_CACHE_BYTES, cls);
>> >> + if (ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN < cls)
>> >> + pr_warn("ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN smaller than the Cache Writeback Granule (%d < %d)\n",
>> >> + ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN, cls);
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> static bool __maybe_unused
>> >
>> > This change was discussed at: [1] but was not concluded as apparently no one
>> > came back with test report and numbers. After including this change in our
>> > local kernel we are seeing significant throughput improvement. For example with:
>> >
>> > iperf -c 192.168.1.181 -i 1 -w 128K -t 60
>> >
>> > The average throughput is improving by about 30% (230Mbps from 180Mbps).
>> > Could you please let us know if this change can be included in upstream kernel.
>> >
>> > [1]: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/linux.kernel/P40yDB90ePs
>>
>> Could you please provide some feedback about the above mentioned query ?
>
> Do you have an explanation on the performance variation when
> L1_CACHE_BYTES is changed? We'd need to understand how the network stack
> is affected by L1_CACHE_BYTES, in which context it uses it (is it for
> non-coherent DMA?).
network stack use SKB_DATA_ALIGN to align.
---
#define SKB_DATA_ALIGN(X) (((X) + (SMP_CACHE_BYTES - 1)) & \
~(SMP_CACHE_BYTES - 1))
#define SMP_CACHE_BYTES L1_CACHE_BYTES
---
I think this is the reason of performance regression.
>
> The Cavium guys haven't shown any numbers (IIUC) to back the
> L1_CACHE_BYTES performance improvement but I would not revert the
> original commit since ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN definitely needs to cover the
> maximum available cache line size, which is 128 for them.
how about define L1_CACHE_SHIFT like below:
---
#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_L1_CACHE_SHIFT
#define L1_CACHE_SHIFT CONFIG_ARM64_L1_CACHE_SHIFT
#else
#define L1_CACHE_SHIFT 7
endif
---
Thanks
>
> --
> Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
