Re: [PATCH 3/6] iova: Allow rcache range upper limit to be configurable

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2021-03-19 17:26, John Garry wrote:
[...]
@@ -25,7 +25,8 @@ struct iova {
  struct iova_magazine;
  struct iova_cpu_rcache;
-#define IOVA_RANGE_CACHE_MAX_SIZE 6    /* log of max cached IOVA range size (in pages) */
+#define IOVA_RANGE_CACHE_DEFAULT_SIZE 6
+#define IOVA_RANGE_CACHE_MAX_SIZE 10 /* log of max cached IOVA range size (in pages) */

No.

And why? If we're going to allocate massive caches anyway, whatever is the point of *not* using all of them?


I wanted to keep the same effective threshold for devices today, unless set otherwise.

The reason is that I didn't know if a blanket increase would cause regressions, and I was taking the super-safe road. Specifically some systems may be very IOVA space limited, and just work today by not caching large IOVAs.

alloc_iova_fast() will already clear out the caches if space is running low, so the caching itself shouldn't be an issue.

And in the precursor thread you wrote "We can't arbitrarily *increase* the scope of caching once a domain is active due to the size-rounding-up requirement, which would be prohibitive to larger allocations if applied universally" (sorry for quoting)

I took the last part to mean that we shouldn't apply this increase in threshold globally.

I meant we can't increase the caching threshold as-is once the domain is in use, because that could result in odd-sized IOVAs previously allocated above the old threshold being later freed back into caches, then causing havoc the next time they get allocated (because they're not as big as the actual size being asked for). However, trying to address that by just size-aligning everything even above the caching threshold is liable to waste too much space on IOVA-constrained systems (e.g. a single 4K video frame may be ~35MB - rounding that up to 64MB each time would be hard to justify).

It follows from that that there's really no point in decoupling the rounding-up threshold from the actual caching threshold - you get all the wastage (both IOVA space and actual memory for the cache arrays) for no obvious benefit.

It only makes sense for a configuration knob to affect the actual rcache and depot allocations - that way, big high-throughput systems with plenty of memory can spend it on better performance, while small systems - that often need IOMMU scatter-gather precisely *because* memory is tight and thus easily fragmented - don't have to pay the (not insignificant) cost for caches they don't need.

So do you suggest to just make IOVA_RANGE_CACHE_MAX_SIZE a kconfig option?

Again, I'm less convinced by Kconfig since I imagine many people tuning server-class systems for their own particular workloads will be running standard enterprise distros, so I think end-user-accessible knobs will be the most valuable. That's not to say that a Kconfig option to set the default state of a command-line option (as we do elsewhere) won't be useful for embedded users, cloud providers, etc., just that I'm not sure it's worth it being the *only* option.

Robin.



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux