[RFC PATCH] iommu: Optimize IOMMU UnMap
Ashish Mhetre
amhetre at nvidia.com
Mon Jul 8 21:39:39 PDT 2024
On 7/3/2024 9:05 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> On 2024-07-01 8:49 am, Ashish Mhetre wrote:
>>
>> On 5/31/2024 2:52 PM, Ashish Mhetre wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/24/2024 6:09 PM, Ashish Mhetre wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/23/2024 7:11 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23/05/2024 4:19 am, Ashish Mhetre wrote:
>>>>>> The current __arm_lpae_unmap() function calls dma_sync() on
>>>>>> individual
>>>>>> PTEs after clearing them. By updating the __arm_lpae_unmap() to call
>>>>>> dma_sync() once for all cleared PTEs, the overall performance can be
>>>>>> improved 25% for large buffer sizes.
>>>>>> Below is detailed analysis of average unmap latency(in us) with and
>>>>>> without this optimization obtained by running dma_map_benchmark for
>>>>>> different buffer sizes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Size Time W/O Time With % Improvement
>>>>>> Optimization Optimization
>>>>>> (us) (us)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4KB 3.0 3.1 -3.33
>>>>>> 1MB 250.3 187.9 24.93
>>>>>
>>>>> This seems highly suspect - the smallest possible block size is 2MB
>>>>> so a
>>>>> 1MB unmap should not be affected by this path at all.
>>>>>
>>>> It will be unmapped at 4KB block size, right? The 'size' passed to
>>>> __arm_lpae_unmap will be 4KB and 'pgcount' will be 256 for 1MB
>>>> buffer from iommu_pgsize() unless the IOVA and phys address met
>>>> conditions for next bigger size i.e., 2MB.
>>>>>> 2MB 493.7 368.7 25.32
>>>>>> 4MB 974.7 723.4 25.78
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm guessing this is on Tegra with the workaround to force
>>>>> everything to
>>>>> PAGE_SIZE? In the normal case a 2MB unmap should be nominally
>>>>> *faster*
>>>>> than 4KB, since it would also be a single PTE, but with one fewer
>>>>> level
>>>>> of table to walk to reach it. The 25% figure is rather misleading if
>>>>> it's only a mitigation of an existing erratum workaround, and the
>>>>> actual
>>>>> impact on the majority of non-broken systems is unmeasured.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, I forgot about the workaround we have and agree that without the
>>>> workaround, 2MB unmap will be faster without this optimization. But
>>>> for any size between 4KB and 2MB, this optimization would help in
>>>> improving the unmap latencies. To verify that, I reverted the
>>>> workaround
>>>> and again got unmap latencies using dma_map_benchmark which are as
>>>> mentioned below. We can see an improvement around 20% to 25%:
>>>>
>>>> Size Time WO Opt(us) Time With Opt(us) %
>>>> improvement
>>>> 4KB 3 3.1 -3.33
>>>> 64KB 18.6 15 19.36
>>>> 128KB 35.2 27.7 21.31
>>>> 256KB 67.6 52.6 22.19
>>>> 512KB 128.4 97.7 23.91
>>>> 1MB 249.9 188.1 24.72
>>>> 2MB 67.4 67.5 -0.15
>>>> 4MB 121.3 121.2 0.08
>>>>
>>>>> (As an aside, I think that workaround itself is a bit broken,
>>>>> since at
>>>>> least on Tegra234 with Cortex-A78, PAGE_SIZE could be 16KB which
>>>>> MMU-500
>>>>> doesn't support.)
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, that's true. For 16KB PAGE_SIZE, we need to fall back to 4KB
>>>> pgsize_bitmap.
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ashish Mhetre <amhetre at nvidia.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c | 34
>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c
>>>>>> b/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c
>>>>>> index 3d23b924cec1..94094b711cba 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c
>>>>>> @@ -256,13 +256,15 @@ static void
>>>>>> __arm_lpae_sync_pte(arm_lpae_iopte *ptep, int num_entries,
>>>>>> sizeof(*ptep) * num_entries,
>>>>>> DMA_TO_DEVICE);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -static void __arm_lpae_clear_pte(arm_lpae_iopte *ptep, struct
>>>>>> io_pgtable_cfg *cfg)
>>>>>> +static void __arm_lpae_clear_pte(arm_lpae_iopte *ptep, struct
>>>>>> io_pgtable_cfg *cfg, int num_entries)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> + int i;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - *ptep = 0;
>>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < num_entries; i++)
>>>>>> + ptep[i] = 0;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (!cfg->coherent_walk)
>>>>>> - __arm_lpae_sync_pte(ptep, 1, cfg);
>>>>>> + __arm_lpae_sync_pte(ptep, num_entries, cfg);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> static size_t __arm_lpae_unmap(struct arm_lpae_io_pgtable *data,
>>>>>> @@ -633,13 +635,25 @@ static size_t __arm_lpae_unmap(struct
>>>>>> arm_lpae_io_pgtable *data,
>>>>>> if (size == ARM_LPAE_BLOCK_SIZE(lvl, data)) {
>>>>>> max_entries = ARM_LPAE_PTES_PER_TABLE(data) -
>>>>>> unmap_idx_start;
>>>>>> num_entries = min_t(int, pgcount, max_entries);
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> - while (i < num_entries) {
>>>>>> - pte = READ_ONCE(*ptep);
>>>>>> + arm_lpae_iopte *pte_flush;
>>>>>> + int j = 0;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + pte_flush = kvcalloc(num_entries, sizeof(*pte_flush),
>>>>>> GFP_ATOMIC);
>>>>>
>>>>> kvmalloc() with GFP_ATOMIC isn't valid. However, I'm not sure if
>>>>> there
>>>>> isn't a more fundamental problem here - Rob, Boris; was it just
>>>>> the map
>>>>> path, or would any allocation on unmap risk the GPU reclaim deadlock
>>>>> thing as well?
>>>>>
>>>> I am using kvmalloc() here to create an array which is used to store
>>>> PTEs
>>>> that are going to be flushed after clearing. If we don't store them
>>>> then
>>>> those will be lost once cleared and we won't be able to flush them.
>>>> I tried using GFP_KERNEL instead of GFP_ATOMIC but then I am getting
>>>> warning from might_sleep().
>>>> Is there any other alternative way we can use here to store the PTEs?
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robin.
>>>>>
>>>>>> + if (pte_flush) {
>>>>>> + for (j = 0; j < num_entries; j++) {
>>>>>> + pte_flush[j] = READ_ONCE(ptep[j]);
>>>>>> + if (WARN_ON(!pte_flush[j]))
>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> + __arm_lpae_clear_pte(ptep, &iop->cfg, j);
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> + while (i < (pte_flush ? j : num_entries)) {
>>>>>> + pte = pte_flush ? pte_flush[i] :
>>>>>> READ_ONCE(*ptep);
>>>>>> if (WARN_ON(!pte))
>>>>>> break;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - __arm_lpae_clear_pte(ptep, &iop->cfg);
>>>>>> + if (!pte_flush)
>>>>>> + __arm_lpae_clear_pte(ptep, &iop->cfg,
>>>>>> 1);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (!iopte_leaf(pte, lvl, iop->fmt)) {
>>>>>> /* Also flush any partial walks */
>>>>>> @@ -649,10 +663,12 @@ static size_t __arm_lpae_unmap(struct
>>>>>> arm_lpae_io_pgtable *data,
>>>>>> } else if
>>>>>> (!iommu_iotlb_gather_queued(gather)) {
>>>>>> io_pgtable_tlb_add_page(iop, gather,
>>>>>> iova + i * size, size);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> - ptep++;
>>>>>> + if (!pte_flush)
>>>>>> + ptep++;
>>>>>> i++;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> + if (pte_flush)
>>>>>> + kvfree(pte_flush);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> return i * size;
>>>>>> } else if (iopte_leaf(pte, lvl, iop->fmt)) {
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Can you please provide feedback on this patch? Is this optimization
>>> worth pursuing?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ashish Mhetre
>> Hi Robin,
>>
>> Can you please share feedback on this? Is more testing required
>> for this on non-Tegra platforms? Perhaps shall I send it as RFT ?
>> I have used 'dma_map_benchmark' available in kernel to test this.
>> Same can be used to test on other platforms.
>
> Apologies I was slightly mistaken before - I confess I was trying to
> remember how the code worked from the patch context alone, and forgot
> that this same path is actually used for clearing leaf entries all the
> way down to L3 as well as freeing tables. So yes, indeed there should be
> something to gain in general from combining the syncs for adjacent leaf
> entries. However we still have the problem that we can't put an
> unconditional allocation in here, so we'd have to do something like
> combine up to the next non-leaf entry and keep the "inline" sync for
> those. Or perhaps it might end up quite a neat compromise overall to do
> your current idea on a smaller scale, with a fixed number of PTEs that's
> reasonable to keep on the stack - even in the worst case, I'd expect to
> still get a fair boost from doing, say, 32 syncs of 2 cachelines each
> vs. 512 that touch each line multiple times.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin.
Thanks for the feedback Robin. I am thinking of going with "combining sync
up to next non-leaf entry" approach. At this point there is a very less
chance
of encountering a non-leaf entry as we are entering this part of code after
matching size with BLOCK_SIZE.
Shall I send a new version with this update?
Thanks,
Ashish Mhetre
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list