All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Santosh Shilimkar)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v5 0/3] introduce static_vm for ARM-specific static mapped area
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 14:32:06 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5110CA8E.5020606@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1360024314-1895-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>

On Tuesday 05 February 2013 06:01 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> In current implementation, we used ARM-specific flag, that is,
> VM_ARM_STATIC_MAPPING, for distinguishing ARM specific static mapped area.
> The purpose of static mapped area is to re-use static mapped area when
> entire physical address range of the ioremap request can be covered
> by this area.
>
> This implementation causes needless overhead for some cases.
> For example, assume that there is only one static mapped area and
> vmlist has 300 areas. Every time we call ioremap, we check 300 areas for
> deciding whether it is matched or not. Moreover, even if there is
> no static mapped area and vmlist has 300 areas, every time we call
> ioremap, we check 300 areas in now.
>
> If we construct a extra list for static mapped area, we can eliminate
> above mentioned overhead.
> With a extra list, if there is one static mapped area,
> we just check only one area and proceed next operation quickly.
>
> In fact, it is not a critical problem, because ioremap is not frequently
> used. But reducing overhead is better idea.
>
> Another reason for doing this work is for removing vm_struct list management,
> entirely. For more information, look at the following link.
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/6/184
>

[..]

>
> Joonsoo Kim (3):
>    ARM: vmregion: remove vmregion code entirely
>    ARM: ioremap: introduce an infrastructure for static mapped area
>    ARM: mm: use static_vm for managing static mapped areas
>
>   arch/arm/mm/Makefile   |    2 +-
>   arch/arm/mm/ioremap.c  |  135 +++++++++++++++++++++----------
>   arch/arm/mm/mm.h       |   12 +++
>   arch/arm/mm/mmu.c      |   34 ++++----
>   arch/arm/mm/vmregion.c |  205 ------------------------------------------------
>   arch/arm/mm/vmregion.h |   31 --------
>   6 files changed, 123 insertions(+), 296 deletions(-)
>   delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mm/vmregion.c
>   delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mm/vmregion.h
>
Nice Clean-up. I tested this series on OMAP which uses few static
mappings. Feel free to add,

Tested-by: Santosh Shilimkar<santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>, <js1304@gmail.com>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] introduce static_vm for ARM-specific static mapped area
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 14:32:06 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5110CA8E.5020606@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1360024314-1895-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>

On Tuesday 05 February 2013 06:01 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> In current implementation, we used ARM-specific flag, that is,
> VM_ARM_STATIC_MAPPING, for distinguishing ARM specific static mapped area.
> The purpose of static mapped area is to re-use static mapped area when
> entire physical address range of the ioremap request can be covered
> by this area.
>
> This implementation causes needless overhead for some cases.
> For example, assume that there is only one static mapped area and
> vmlist has 300 areas. Every time we call ioremap, we check 300 areas for
> deciding whether it is matched or not. Moreover, even if there is
> no static mapped area and vmlist has 300 areas, every time we call
> ioremap, we check 300 areas in now.
>
> If we construct a extra list for static mapped area, we can eliminate
> above mentioned overhead.
> With a extra list, if there is one static mapped area,
> we just check only one area and proceed next operation quickly.
>
> In fact, it is not a critical problem, because ioremap is not frequently
> used. But reducing overhead is better idea.
>
> Another reason for doing this work is for removing vm_struct list management,
> entirely. For more information, look at the following link.
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/6/184
>

[..]

>
> Joonsoo Kim (3):
>    ARM: vmregion: remove vmregion code entirely
>    ARM: ioremap: introduce an infrastructure for static mapped area
>    ARM: mm: use static_vm for managing static mapped areas
>
>   arch/arm/mm/Makefile   |    2 +-
>   arch/arm/mm/ioremap.c  |  135 +++++++++++++++++++++----------
>   arch/arm/mm/mm.h       |   12 +++
>   arch/arm/mm/mmu.c      |   34 ++++----
>   arch/arm/mm/vmregion.c |  205 ------------------------------------------------
>   arch/arm/mm/vmregion.h |   31 --------
>   6 files changed, 123 insertions(+), 296 deletions(-)
>   delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mm/vmregion.c
>   delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mm/vmregion.h
>
Nice Clean-up. I tested this series on OMAP which uses few static
mappings. Feel free to add,

Tested-by: Santosh Shilimkar<santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-02-05  9:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-02-05  0:31 [PATCH v5 0/3] introduce static_vm for ARM-specific static mapped area Joonsoo Kim
2013-02-05  0:31 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-02-05  0:31 ` [PATCH v5 1/3] ARM: vmregion: remove vmregion code entirely Joonsoo Kim
2013-02-05  0:31   ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-02-05  8:52   ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-02-05  8:52     ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-02-06  2:08     ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-02-06  2:08       ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-02-05  0:31 ` [PATCH v5 2/3] ARM: ioremap: introduce an infrastructure for static mapped area Joonsoo Kim
2013-02-05  0:31   ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-02-05  4:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-02-05  4:08     ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-02-05  0:31 ` [PATCH v5 3/3] ARM: mm: use static_vm for managing static mapped areas Joonsoo Kim
2013-02-05  0:31   ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-02-05  4:44   ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-02-05  4:44     ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-02-05 17:28     ` Rob Herring
2013-02-05 17:28       ` Rob Herring
2013-02-05 18:13       ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-02-05 18:13         ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-02-05 19:12         ` Rob Herring
2013-02-05 19:12           ` Rob Herring
2013-02-06  2:07           ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-02-06  2:07             ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-02-06  5:05             ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-02-06  5:05               ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-02-06  6:19               ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-02-06  6:19                 ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-02-06  1:41     ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-02-06  1:41       ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-02-05  9:02 ` Santosh Shilimkar [this message]
2013-02-05  9:02   ` [PATCH v5 0/3] introduce static_vm for ARM-specific static mapped area Santosh Shilimkar
2013-02-06  2:09   ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-02-06  2:09     ` Joonsoo Kim

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5110CA8E.5020606@ti.com \
    --to=santosh.shilimkar@ti.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.