Re: [PATCH net-next 3/8] net: ethernet: mtk_eth_soc: move MAX_DEVS in mtk_soc_data

From: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@redhat.com>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc: Daniel Golle <daniel@makrotopia.org>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
	<angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>,
	Mark Lee <Mark-MC.Lee@mediatek.com>,
	Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>,
	John Crispin <john@phrozen.org>, Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Sam Shih <Sam.Shih@mediatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/8] net: ethernet: mtk_eth_soc: move MAX_DEVS in mtk_soc_data
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 23:52:46 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZIeTrjCsyQSiCnsr@lore-desk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZIb6604WRJsevaWN@shell.armlinux.org.uk>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1936 bytes --]

> On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 01:35:17AM +0100, Daniel Golle wrote:
> > @@ -1106,14 +1105,14 @@ struct mtk_eth {
> >  	spinlock_t			tx_irq_lock;
> >  	spinlock_t			rx_irq_lock;
> >  	struct net_device		dummy_dev;
> > -	struct net_device		*netdev[MTK_MAX_DEVS];
> > -	struct mtk_mac			*mac[MTK_MAX_DEVS];
> > +	struct net_device		**netdev;
> > +	struct mtk_mac			**mac;
> >  	int				irq[3];
> >  	u32				msg_enable;
> >  	unsigned long			sysclk;
> >  	struct regmap			*ethsys;
> >  	struct regmap			*infra;
> > -	struct phylink_pcs		*sgmii_pcs[MTK_MAX_DEVS];
> > +	struct phylink_pcs		**sgmii_pcs;
> >  	struct regmap			*pctl;
> >  	bool				hwlro;
> >  	refcount_t			dma_refcnt;
> 
> Is it really worth the extra allocations?
> 
> There's three pointers here per device. Let's talk about modern systems,
> so that's 8 bytes each, and if MTK_MAX_DEVS was two, that's 48 bytes in
> all. If we expanded the array to allow three, that would be 72 bytes.
> 
> If we allocate separately, then we're allocating 16 or 24 bytes three
> times depending on whether we want two or three of them.
> 
> On arm64, I'm seeing the minimum slab size as 128 bytes, which means
> that's the minimum memory allocation. So, allocating three arrays will
> be 384 bytes in all, irrespective of whether we want two or three
> entries.
> 
> That's a waste of about 5x the memory over just expanding the arrays!

ack, I agree. I will fix it.

Regards,
Lorenzo

> 
> If you want to go down the route of dynamically allocating these, it
> would make better sense to combine them into a single structure that
> itself is an array, and thus requiring only one allocation. That
> reduces the wastage to about 56 bytes for three ports or 80 bytes
> for two.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
> FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
> 

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel