On Thu, 16 May 2019 15:59:22 +0200 (CEST) Sebastian Ott <sebott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 12 May 2019, Halil Pasic wrote: > > I've also got code that deals with AIRQ_IV_CACHELINE by turning the > > kmem_cache into a dma_pool. > > > > Cornelia, Sebastian which approach do you prefer: > > 1) get rid of cio_dma_pool and AIRQ_IV_CACHELINE, and waste a page per > > vector, or > > 2) go with the approach taken by the patch below? > > We only have a couple of users for airq_iv: > > virtio_ccw.c: 2K bits You mean a single allocation is 2k bits (VIRTIO_IV_BITS = 256 * 8)? My understanding is that the upper bound is more like: MAX_AIRQ_AREAS * VIRTIO_IV_BITS = 20 * 256 * 8 = 40960 bits. In practice it is most likely just 2k. > > pci with floating IRQs: <= 2K (for the per-function bit vectors) > 1..4K (for the summary bit vector) > As far as I can tell with virtio_pci arch_setup_msi_irqs() gets called once per device and allocates a small number of bits (2 and 3 in my test, it may depend on #virtqueues, but I did not check). So for an upper bound we would have to multiply with the upper bound of pci devices/functions. What is the upper bound on the number of functions? > pci with CPU directed IRQs: 2K (for the per-CPU bit vectors) > 1..nr_cpu (for the summary bit vector) > I guess this is the same. > > The options are: > * page allocations for everything Worst case we need 20 + #max_pci_dev pages. At the moment we allocate from ZONE_DMA (!) and waste a lot. > * dma_pool for AIRQ_IV_CACHELINE ,gen_pool for others I prefer this. Explanation follows. > * dma_pool for everything > Less waste by factor factor 16. > I think we should do option 3 and use a dma_pool with cachesize > alignment for everything (as a prerequisite we have to limit > config PCI_NR_FUNCTIONS to 2K - but that is not a real constraint). > I prefer option 3 because it is conceptually the smallest change, and provides the behavior which is closest to the current one. Commit 414cbd1e3d14 "s390/airq: provide cacheline aligned ivs" (Sebastian Ott, 2019-02-27) could have been smaller had you implemented 'kmem_cache for everything' (and I would have had just to replace kmem_cache with dma_cache to achieve option 3). For some reason you decided to keep the iv->vector = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL) code-path and make the client code request iv->vector = kmem_cache_zalloc(airq_iv_cache, GFP_KERNEL) explicitly, using a flag which you only decided to use for directed pci irqs AFAICT. My understanding of these decisions, and especially of the rationale behind commit 414cbd1e3d14 is limited. Thus if option 3 is the way to go, and the choices made by 414cbd1e3d14 were sub-optimal, I would feel much more comfortable if you provided a patch that revises and switches everything to kmem_chache. I would then just swap kmem_cache out with a dma_cache and my change would end up a straightforward and relatively clean one. So Sebastian, what shall we do? Regards, Halil > Sebastian > _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
