On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 07:41:49AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > On 04/08/2015 01:42 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 05:47:42PM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote: > >>This change makes it so that instead of using smp_wmb/rmb which varies > >>depending on the kernel configuration we can can use dma_wmb/rmb which for > >>most architectures should be equal to or slightly more strict than > >>smp_wmb/rmb. > >> > >>The advantage to this is that these barriers are available to uniprocessor > >>builds as well so the performance should improve under such a > >>configuration. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@xxxxxxxxxx> > >Well the generic implementation has: > >#ifndef dma_rmb > >#define dma_rmb() rmb() > >#endif > > > >#ifndef dma_wmb > >#define dma_wmb() wmb() > >#endif > > > >So for these arches you are slightly speeding up UP but slightly hurting SMP - > >I think we did benchmark the difference as measureable in the past. > > The generic implementation for the smp_ barriers does the same thing when > CONFIG_SMP is defined. The only spot where there should be an appreciable > difference between the two is on ARM where we define the dma_ barriers as > being in the outer shareable domain, and for the smp_ barriers they are > inner shareable domain. > > >Additionally, isn't this relying on undocumented behaviour? > >The documentation says: > > "These are for use with consistent memory" > >and virtio does not bother to request consistent memory > >allocations. > > Consistent in this case represents memory that exists within one coherency > domain. So in the case of x86 for instance this represents writes only to > system memory. If you mix writes to system memory and device memory (PIO) > then you should be using the full wmb/rmb to guarantee ordering between the > two memories. > > >One wonders whether these will always be strong enough. > > For the purposes of weak barriers they should be, and they are only slightly > stronger than SMP in one case so odds are strength will not be the issue. > As far as speed I would suspect that the difference between inner and outer > shareable domain should be negligible compared to the difference between a > dsb() and a dmb(). > > - Alex Maybe it's safe, and maybe there's no performance impact. But what's the purpose of the patch? From the commit log, It sounds like it's an optimization, but it's not an obvious win, and it's not accompanied by any numbers. -- MST _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
