From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc: leo.jiang1224@foxmail.com, joro@8bytes.org,
iommu@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Stop queue allocation retry at PAGE_SIZE
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2026 17:38:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aeeoEHHNKPo32H9R@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0fdf4b1f-90f2-4f69-9d2b-dc5f608e9c1c@arm.com>
On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 04:56:47PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 18/04/2026 6:31 am, leo.jiang1224@foxmail.com wrote:
> > From: LoserJL <leo.jiang1224@foxmail.com>
> >
> > In arm_smmu_init_one_queue(), the loop reduces max_n_shift if
> > dmam_alloc_coherent() fails. However, since dmam_alloc_coherent()
> > allocates at least PAGE_SIZE, retrying with a smaller size after
> > a PAGE_SIZE failure is logically redundant.
>
> Says who? It's certainly not a guarantee offered by the DMA API itself, and
> indeed some allocation paths can definitely still allocate less than a page
> - e.g. anything which hits a per-device or global coherent pool.
>
> > Moreover, if a sub-page retry were to succeed due to concurrent memory
> > release, the hardware would be configured with a smaller queue depth
> > despite a full page being allocated. This leads to inefficient memory
> > usage and unnecessary hardware performance limitation.
> >
> > Terminate the loop once qsz reaches PAGE_SIZE to ensure logical
> > consistency and optimal hardware configuration.
>
> That's really not an argument - even if an allocator does happen to
> over-allocate for the requested size, that is hardly the caller's concern;
> and as far as "optimal" queue sizes go in this case, those very much depend
> on the number of CPUs issuing commands and volume of expected stall/PRI
> events - in many cases PAGE_SIZE would already be far too small to really
> work well.
>
> Also note that if we _were_ to fail to allocate a PAGE_SIZE or smaller
> queue, there would be very little chance of the subsequent allocation(s) for
> the stream table succeeding, so realistically the driver is probably going
> to end up failing to probe in such circumstances anyway.
That's all true, but tbf I think I just fscked up the comparison in
d25f6ead162e ("iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Increase maximum size of queues") so
I'm not against fixing that up even though the "rationale" given by
Loser doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-21 16:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-18 5:31 [PATCH] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Stop queue allocation retry at PAGE_SIZE leo.jiang1224
2026-04-21 15:26 ` Will Deacon
2026-04-21 15:56 ` Robin Murphy
2026-04-21 16:38 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2026-04-22 9:13 ` Leo Jiang
2026-04-22 9:28 ` [PATCH v2] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Limit queue allocation retry boundary to PAGE_SIZE Leo Jiang
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=aeeoEHHNKPo32H9R@willie-the-truck \
--to=will@kernel.org \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=leo.jiang1224@foxmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.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