On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 06:00:50AM +0000, Daisuke Matsuda (Fujitsu) wrote:
> On Tue, June 13, 2023 1:19 AM Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> Sorry for my long silence.
> I must spend most of my time for other works these days,
> but I am still willing to complete this and subsequent works.
>
> >
> > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 05:21:50PM +0900, Daisuke Matsuda wrote:
> >
> > > +static void rxe_mr_set_xarray(struct rxe_mr *mr, unsigned long start,
> > > + unsigned long end, unsigned long *pfn_list)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned long lower, upper, idx;
> > > + struct page *page;
> > > +
> > > + lower = rxe_mr_iova_to_index(mr, start);
> > > + upper = rxe_mr_iova_to_index(mr, end);
> > > +
> > > + /* make pages visible in xarray. no sleep while taking the lock */
> > > + spin_lock(&mr->page_list.xa_lock);
> > > + for (idx = lower; idx <= upper; idx++) {
> > > + page = hmm_pfn_to_page(pfn_list[idx]);
> > > + __xa_store(&mr->page_list, idx, page, GFP_ATOMIC);
> >
> > All of these loops can be performance improved a lot by using xas
> > loops
>
> Well, do you mean I should use 'xas_for_each()' here?
> That is the same 'for-loop' after all, so performance may not be improved.
> Additionally, the 'idx' value above must be counted separately in that case.
xa_store is O(n log(n)), xas_store()/xas_next() more like O(n) per
store operation.
Jason
