[PATCH v2 0/2] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Improve cmdq lock efficiency
john.garry at huawei.com
Mon Sep 21 09:58:10 EDT 2020
On 21/09/2020 14:43, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 09:54:20PM +0800, John Garry wrote:
>> As mentioned in , the CPU may consume many cycles processing
>> arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist(). One issue we find is the cmpxchg() loop to
>> get space on the queue takes a lot of time once we start getting many
>> CPUs contending - from experiment, for 64 CPUs contending the cmdq,
>> success rate is ~ 1 in 12, which is poor, but not totally awful.
>> This series removes that cmpxchg() and replaces with an atomic_add,
>> same as how the actual cmdq deals with maintaining the prod pointer.
> > I'm still not a fan of this.
> Could you try to adapt the hacks I sent before,
> please? I know they weren't quite right (I have no hardware to test on), but
> the basic idea is to fall back to a spinlock if the cmpxchg() fails. The
> queueing in the spinlock implementation should avoid the contention.
OK, so if you're asking me to try this again, then I can do that, and
see what it gives us.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel