From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] iommu/dma: Use NUMA aware memory allocations in __iommu_dma_alloc_pages() Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 16:57:55 +0000 Message-ID: <20181121165755.GE24883@arm.com> References: <1542812051-178935-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com> <20181121160718.GB24883@arm.com> <24be0d21-63b1-c88d-fdfd-42575f12634f@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <24be0d21-63b1-c88d-fdfd-42575f12634f@huawei.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: John Garry Cc: joro@8bytes.org, robin.murphy@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, ganapatrao.kulkarni@cavium.com, hch@lst.de, m.szyprowski@samsung.com, linuxarm@huawei.com List-Id: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 04:47:48PM +0000, John Garry wrote: > On 21/11/2018 16:07, Will Deacon wrote: > >On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 10:54:10PM +0800, John Garry wrote: > >>From: Ganapatrao Kulkarni > >> > >>Change function __iommu_dma_alloc_pages() to allocate pages for DMA from > >>respective device NUMA node. The ternary operator which would be for > >>alloc_pages_node() is tidied along with this. > >> > >>We also include a change to use kvzalloc() for kzalloc()/vzalloc() > >>combination. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Ganapatrao Kulkarni > >>[JPG: Added kvzalloc(), drop pages ** being device local, tidied ternary operator] > >>Signed-off-by: John Garry > > > >Weird, you're missing a diffstat here. > > > >Anyway, the patch looks fine to me, but it would be nice if you could > >justify the change with some numbers. Do you actually see an improvement > >from this change? > > > > Hi Will, > > Ah, I missed adding my comments explaining the motivation. It would be > better in the commit log. Anyway, here's the snippet: > > " ... as mentioned in [3], dma_alloc_coherent() uses the locality > information from the device - as in direct DMA - so this patch is just > applying this same policy. > > [3] > https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1692998.html" Yes, please add to this to the commit log. > I did have some numbers to show improvement in some scenarios when I tested > this a while back which I'll dig out. > > However I would say that some scenarios will improve and the opposite for > others with this change, considering different conditions in which DMA > memory may be used. Well, if you can show that it's useful in some cases and not catastrophic in others, then I think shooting for parity with direct DMA is a reasonable justification for the change. Will