On 2022-04-28 17:02, Andi Kleen wrote:
On 4/28/2022 8:07 AM, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 2022-04-28 15:55, Andi Kleen wrote:
On 4/28/2022 7:45 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 03:44:36PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
Rather than introduce this extra level of allocator complexity, how
about
just dividing up the initial SWIOTLB allocation into multiple
io_tlb_mem
instances?
Yeah. We're almost done removing all knowledge of swiotlb from
drivers,
so the very last thing I want is an interface that allows a driver to
allocate a per-device buffer.
At least for TDX need parallelism with a single device for performance.
So if you split up the io tlb mems for a device then you would need a
new mechanism to load balance the requests for single device over
those. I doubt it would be any simpler.
Eh, I think it would be, since the round-robin retry loop can then
just sit around the existing io_tlb_mem-based allocator, vs. the churn
of inserting it in the middle, plus it's then really easy to
statically distribute different starting points across different
devices via dev->dma_io_tlb_mem if we wanted to.
Admittedly the overall patch probably ends up about the same size,
since it likely pushes a bit more complexity into swiotlb_init to
compensate, but that's still a trade-off I like.
Unless you completely break the external API this will require a new
mechanism to search a list of io_tlb_mems for the right area to free into.
If the memory area not contiguous (like in the original patch) this will
be a O(n) operation on the number of io_tlb_mems, so it would get more
and more expensive on larger systems. Or you merge them all together (so
that the simple address arithmetic to look up the area works again),
which will require even more changes in the setup. Or you add hashing or
similar which will be even more complicated.
In the end doing it with a single io_tlb_mem is significantly simpler
and also more natural.
Sorry if "dividing up the initial SWIOTLB allocation" somehow sounded
like "making multiple separate SWIOTLB allocations all over the place"?
I don't see there being any *functional* difference in whether a slice
of the overall SWIOTLB memory is represented by
"io_tlb_default_mem->areas[i]->blah" or "io_tlb_default_mem[i]->blah",
I'm simply advocating for not churning the already-complex allocator
internals by pushing the new complexity out to the margins instead.
Thanks,
Robin.
