From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: joonwoop@codeaurora.org (Joonwoo Park)
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 19:39:33 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: optimize memcpy_{from,to}io() and memset_io()
In-Reply-To: <20141003163141.GC2384@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <1406701706-12808-1-git-send-email-joonwoop@codeaurora.org>
 <20140801063009.GA24602@codeaurora.org>
 <20141003163141.GC2384@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Message-ID: <20141009023933.GA21161@codeaurora.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 05:31:42PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:28:26PM -0700, Joonwoo Park wrote:
> > Optimize memcpy_{from,to}io() and memset_io() by transferring in 64 bit
> > as much as possible with minimized barrier usage.  This simplest optimization
> > brings faster throughput compare to current byte-by-byte read and write with
> > barrier in the loop.  Code's skeleton is taken from the powerpc.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Joonwoo Park <joonwoop@codeaurora.org>
> > Acked-by: Trilok Soni <tsoni@codeaurora.org>
> 
> I thought about merging this but there are some issues. Comments below.

Thanks for reviewing.

> 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/io.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/io.c
> > index 7d37ead..c0e3ab1 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/io.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/io.c
> > @@ -20,18 +20,34 @@
> >  #include <linux/types.h>
> >  #include <linux/io.h>
> >  
> > +#define IO_CHECK_ALIGN(v, a) ((((unsigned long)(v)) & ((a) - 1)) == 0)
> 
> Can you not use just IS_ALIGNED?
> 

Will do.  I would need to cast from/to with unsigned long.

> >  /*
> >   * Copy data from IO memory space to "real" memory space.
> >   */
> >  void __memcpy_fromio(void *to, const volatile void __iomem *from, size_t count)
> >  {
> > -	unsigned char *t = to;
> > -	while (count) {
> > +	while (count && (!IO_CHECK_ALIGN(from, 8) || !IO_CHECK_ALIGN(to, 8))) {
> > +		*(u8 *)to = readb_relaxed(from);
> 
> We should not use the relaxed accessors here as we don't really care
> about endianness conversion. We just copy data from one place to another
> without interpreting it, so __raw_read*() is sufficient.
> 

Will do.

> > +		from++;
> > +		to++;
> >  		count--;
> > -		*t = readb(from);
> > -		t++;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	while (count >= 8) {
> > +		*(u64 *)to = readq_relaxed(from);
> > +		from += 8;
> > +		to += 8;
> > +		count -= 8;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	while (count) {
> > +		*(u8 *)to = readb_relaxed(from);
> >  		from++;
> > +		to++;
> > +		count--;
> >  	}
> > +	__iormb();
> 
> We don't need this barrier here. In the readl() implementation, it's use
> is for ordering between I/O polling and DMA buffer access.
> 

The barriers here and down below are for accessing different devices in a row.
I thought that's what your suggestion too.
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2012-September/123178.html

> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(__memcpy_fromio);
> >  
> > @@ -40,12 +56,28 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__memcpy_fromio);
> >   */
> >  void __memcpy_toio(volatile void __iomem *to, const void *from, size_t count)
> >  {
> > -	const unsigned char *f = from;
> > +	void *p = (void __force *)from;
> 
> Why do you need this?
> 

Will drop this.

> > +
> > +	__iowmb();
> 
> Not needed here either.
> 
> > +	while (count && (!IO_CHECK_ALIGN(p, 8) || !IO_CHECK_ALIGN(from, 8))) {
> > +		writeb_relaxed(*(volatile u8 *)from, p);
> 
> Oh, so you copy from "from" to "from". Have you really tested this?
> 

I also found this issue with more testing after sending this patch.  Will fix.

> > @@ -55,10 +87,30 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__memcpy_toio);
> >   */
> >  void __memset_io(volatile void __iomem *dst, int c, size_t count)
> >  {
> > +	void *p = (void __force *)dst;
> 
> Do you need this?
> 

Will drop this.

> > +	u64 qc = c;
> > +
> > +	qc |= qc << 8;
> > +	qc |= qc << 16;
> > +	qc |= qc << 32;
> > +
> > +	__iowmb();
> 
> What's this for?
> 

This barrier was for the same reason with one above for writing different devices that doesn't guarantee writing order.

> > +	while (count && !IO_CHECK_ALIGN(p, 8)) {
> > +		writeb_relaxed(c, p);
> 
> Using dst here directly here should work (__raw_writeb takes the same
> type as the second argument).
> 

Will update.

I'm quite not sure if barriers are not needed or not indeed.
The situation I'm worried about is like 'memcpy_io(device A); memcpy_io(device B);' which I think memcpy_io() needs to guarantee the order.
Please let me know.  I'll submit new version then.

Thanks,
Joonwoo

> 
> -- 
> Catalin

-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation