From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
To: Eric Farman <farman@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Farhan Ali <alifm@linux.ibm.com>,
Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/5] s390: more vfio-ccw code rework
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 10:25:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190619102501.3be69000.cohuck@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190618202352.39702-1-farman@linux.ibm.com>
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 22:23:47 +0200
Eric Farman <farman@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> A couple little improvements to the malloc load in vfio-ccw.
> Really, there were just (the first) two patches, but then I
> got excited and added a few stylistic ones to the end.
>
> The routine ccwchain_calc_length() has this basic structure:
>
> ccwchain_calc_length
> a0 = kcalloc(CCWCHAIN_LEN_MAX, sizeof(struct ccw1))
> copy_ccw_from_iova(a0, src)
> copy_from_iova
> pfn_array_alloc
> b = kcalloc(len, sizeof(*pa_iova_pfn + *pa_pfn)
> pfn_array_pin
> vfio_pin_pages
> memcpy(a0, src)
> pfn_array_unpin_free
> vfio_unpin_pages
> kfree(b)
> kfree(a0)
>
> We do this EVERY time we process a new channel program chain,
> meaning at least once per SSCH and more if TICs are involved,
> to figure out how many CCWs are chained together. Once that
> is determined, a new piece of memory is allocated (call it a1)
> and then passed to copy_ccw_from_iova() again, but for the
> value calculated by ccwchain_calc_length().
>
> This seems inefficient.
>
> Patch 1 moves the malloc of a0 from the CCW processor to the
> initialization of the device. Since only one SSCH can be
> handled concurrently, we can use this space safely to
> determine how long the chain being processed actually is.
>
> Patch 2 then removes the second copy_ccw_from_iova() call
> entirely, and replaces it with a memcpy from a0 to a1. This
> is done before we process a TIC and thus a second chain, so
> there is no overlap in the storage in channel_program.
>
> Patches 3-5 clean up some things that aren't as clear as I'd
> like, but didn't want to pollute the first two changes.
> For example, patch 3 moves the population of guest_cp to the
> same routine that copies from it, rather than in a called
> function. Meanwhile, patch 4 (and thus, 5) was something I
> had lying around for quite some time, because it looked to
> be structured weird. Maybe that's one bridge too far.
I think this is worthwhile.
>
> Eric Farman (5):
> vfio-ccw: Move guest_cp storage into common struct
> vfio-ccw: Skip second copy of guest cp to host
> vfio-ccw: Copy CCW data outside length calculation
> vfio-ccw: Factor out the ccw0-to-ccw1 transition
> vfio-ccw: Remove copy_ccw_from_iova()
>
> drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_cp.c | 108 +++++++++++---------------------
> drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_cp.h | 7 +++
> drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c | 7 +++
> 3 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-)
>
Ok, so I just wanted to take a quick look, and then ended up reviewing
it all :)
Will give others some time to look at this before I queue.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-19 8:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-18 20:23 [RFC PATCH v1 0/5] s390: more vfio-ccw code rework Eric Farman
2019-06-18 20:23 ` [RFC PATCH v1 1/5] vfio-ccw: Move guest_cp storage into common struct Eric Farman
2019-06-19 8:14 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-06-19 20:13 ` Farhan Ali
2019-06-19 20:53 ` Eric Farman
2019-06-19 21:12 ` Farhan Ali
2019-06-18 20:23 ` [RFC PATCH v1 2/5] vfio-ccw: Skip second copy of guest cp to host Eric Farman
2019-06-19 8:17 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-06-18 20:23 ` [RFC PATCH v1 3/5] vfio-ccw: Copy CCW data outside length calculation Eric Farman
2019-06-19 8:18 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-06-18 20:23 ` [RFC PATCH v1 4/5] vfio-ccw: Factor out the ccw0-to-ccw1 transition Eric Farman
2019-06-19 8:22 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-06-18 20:23 ` [RFC PATCH v1 5/5] vfio-ccw: Remove copy_ccw_from_iova() Eric Farman
2019-06-19 8:23 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-06-19 21:13 ` Farhan Ali
2019-06-19 8:25 ` Cornelia Huck [this message]
2019-06-19 11:11 ` [RFC PATCH v1 0/5] s390: more vfio-ccw code rework Eric Farman
2019-06-19 21:15 ` Farhan Ali
2019-06-21 12:25 ` Cornelia Huck
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=20190619102501.3be69000.cohuck@redhat.com \
--to=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=alifm@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=farman@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox