Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] Add Tegra241 (Grace) CMDQV Support (part 1/2)

From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
Cc: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>,
	"will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
	"robin.murphy@arm.com" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	"joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>,
	"thierry.reding@gmail.com" <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	"vdumpa@nvidia.com" <vdumpa@nvidia.com>,
	"jonathanh@nvidia.com" <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"iommu@lists.linux.dev" <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] Add Tegra241 (Grace) CMDQV Support (part 1/2)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:29:26 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240417122926.GP3637727@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ba3047f946c6475aaf30800f9d3f9afb@huawei.com>

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 09:45:34AM +0000, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote:

> Just to add to that. One idea could be like to have a case where when ECMDQs are 
> detected, use that for issuing limited set of cmds(like stage 1 TLBIs) and use the
> normal cmdq for rest. Since we use stage 1 for both host and for Guest nested cases
> and TLBIs are the bottlenecks in most cases I think this should give performance
> benefits.

There is definately options to look at to improve the performance
here.

IMHO the design of the ECMDQ largely seems to expect 1 queue per-cpu
and then we move to a lock-less design where each CPU uses it's own
private per-cpu queue. In this case a VMM calling the kernel to do
invalidation would often naturally use a thread originating on a pCPU
bound to a vCPU which is substantially exclusive to the VM.

Jason

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