From: "majun (Euler7)" <majun258@huawei.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
robert.moore@intel.com, lenb@kernel.org, lv.zheng@intel.com,
rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, devel@acpica.org,
mark.rutland@arm.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, jason@lakedaemon.net
Cc: majun258@huawei.com, dingtianhong@huawei.com, guohanjun@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Add a new flag for ITS device to control indirect route
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 11:11:28 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5844DAE0.9050101@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bd4114c2-a6d9-123c-8f9f-e6da33a481ba@arm.com>
Hi Marc:
在 2016/12/2 17:35, Marc Zyngier 写道:
> On 02/12/16 09:29, majun (Euler7) wrote:
>>
>>
>> 在 2016/12/1 17:07, Marc Zyngier 写道:
>>> On 01/12/16 07:45, Majun wrote:
>>>> From: MaJun <majun258@huawei.com>
>>>>
>>>> For current ITS driver, two level table (indirect route) is enabled when the memory used
>>>> for LPI route table over the limit(64KB * 2) size. But this function impact the
>>>> performance of LPI interrupt actually because need more time to look up the table.
>>>
>>> Are you implying that your ITS doesn't have a cache to lookup the most
>>> active devices, hence performing a full lookup on each interrupt?
>>
>> Our ITS chip has the cache with depth 64. But this seems not enough for some
>> scenario,espeically on virtulization platform.
>
> Then I don't see how switching to to flat tables is going to improve
> things. Can you share actual performance numbers?
>
Sorry, I run this code on EMU and have no actual performance numbers now.
Suppose there are 66 devices in system.
As far as our chip concerned, there are always 2 devices can't benefit from
cache fully when they report the interrupt.
If i'm wrong, please correct me.
Thanks
Majun
>>> Anyway, doing this as a DT quirk doesn't feel right. Please use the ITS
>>> quirk infrastructure.
>>
>> If there is no other better solutions, I will do this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-05 3:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-01 7:45 [RFC PATCH 0/3] Add a new flag for ITS device to control indirect route Majun
2016-12-01 7:45 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3]Binding: Add a new property string in ITS node to control the two-level route function Majun
2016-12-01 7:45 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] irqchip/gicv3-its: add a new flag to control indirect route in DT mode Majun
2016-12-01 7:46 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3]irqchip/gicv3-its: Add a new flag to control indirect route in ACPI mode Majun
2016-12-01 9:07 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] Add a new flag for ITS device to control indirect route Marc Zyngier
2016-12-02 9:29 ` majun (Euler7)
2016-12-02 9:35 ` Marc Zyngier
2016-12-05 3:11 ` majun (Euler7) [this message]
2016-12-05 9:00 ` Marc Zyngier
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=5844DAE0.9050101@huawei.com \
--to=majun258@huawei.com \
--cc=devel@acpica.org \
--cc=dingtianhong@huawei.com \
--cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
--cc=jason@lakedaemon.net \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lv.zheng@intel.com \
--cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=robert.moore@intel.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox