[PATCH v4 01/10] iommu/vt-d: add wrapper functions for page allocations

Robin Murphy robin.murphy at arm.com
Tue Feb 13 09:26:26 PST 2024

On 10/02/2024 2:21 am, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
>>> +/**
>>> + * iommu_alloc_pages_node - allocate a zeroed page of a given order from
>>> + * specific NUMA node.
>>> + * @nid: memory NUMA node id
>>> + * @gfp: buddy allocator flags
>>> + * @order: page order
>>> + *
>>> + * returns the virtual address of the allocated page
>>> + */
>>> +static inline void *iommu_alloc_pages_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp, int order)
>>> +{
>>> +     struct page *page = __iommu_alloc_pages_node(nid, gfp, order);
>>> +
>>> +     if (unlikely(!page))
>>> +             return NULL;
>> As a general point I'd prefer to fold these checks into the accounting
>> function itself rather than repeat them all over.
> For the free functions this saves a few cycles by not repeating this
> check again inside __free_pages(), to keep things symmetrical it makes
> sense to keep __iomu_free_account and __iomu_alloc_account the same.
> With the other clean-up there are not that many of these checks left.

__free_pages() doesn't accept NULL, so __iommu_free_pages() shouldn't 
need a check; free_pages() does, but correspondingly iommu_free_pages() 
needs its own check up-front to avoid virt_to_page(NULL); either way it 
means there are no callers of iommu_free_account() who should be passing 

The VA-returning allocators of course need to avoid page_address(NULL), 
so I clearly made this comment in the wrong place to begin with, oops. 
In the end I guess that will leave __iommu_alloc_pages() as the only 
caller of iommu_alloc_account() who doesn't already need to handle their 
own NULL. OK, I'm convinced, apologies for having to bounce it off you 
to work it through :)

>>> + */
>>> +static inline void *iommu_alloc_page_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp)
>>> +{
>>> +     return iommu_alloc_pages_node(nid, gfp, 0);
>>> +}
>> TBH I'm not entirely convinced that saving 4 characters per invocation
>> times 11 invocations makes this wrapper worthwhile :/
> Let's keep them. After the clean-up that you suggested, there are
> fewer functions left in this file, but I think that it is cleaner to
> keep these remaining, as it is beneficial to easily distinguish when
> exactly one page is allocated vs when multiple are allocated via code
> search.

But is it, really? It's not at all obvious to me *why* it would be 
significantly interesting to distinguish fixed order-0 allocations from 
higher-order or variable-order (which may still be 0) ones. After all, 
there's no regular alloc_page_node() wrapper, yet plenty more callers of 
alloc_pages_node(..., 0) :/


More information about the Linux-rockchip mailing list