From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74179C4829A for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:26:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:From:References:Cc:To:Subject: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=w3EbCyquSaRpDboW4FOI3ttQaKNUwpiHyzLmTn7G3pI=; b=Zka6hypG7eOg3c 1ytZ6FvBHBqLn8FzkKSGb0/dpJmN4B8mmDNQtHS2PwOs2YL9fNu7GJTHOb6WE6aZSuTHUeKCz+vsj J4Vuht9KTuIev5Ya7PWMrRnjWO3cKKHtTvCYYbmRS78lOUVHd3Jf10asER2w5vTypIzQ6ossZjamR vt38tGWJcP8VRtHVa0tGQBr948hXwVMQMa3sjXi7VYOYL9YUbAPKSwDb+E75vD33xw098uqB/dx3Z 4L7SwG2d6CZXkAavSGhux3C5+6KIv2smOTapC5TZVeVtJeZRUhsd8vRxEyny4pRtfU4ZUu7Ph+Xac kZVbQWpxRlvkL1fz+ygA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rZwYH-0000000A89q-3S8d; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:26:37 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rZwYF-0000000A88C-19sy for linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:26:36 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 724E71FB; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:27:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.196.40] (e121345-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.196.40]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 155943F5A1; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:26:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:26:26 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/10] iommu/vt-d: add wrapper functions for page allocations Content-Language: en-GB To: Pasha Tatashin Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, alim.akhtar@samsung.com, alyssa@rosenzweig.io, asahi@lists.linux.dev, baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, bhelgaas@google.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net, david@redhat.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, heiko@sntech.de, iommu@lists.linux.dev, jernej.skrabec@gmail.com, jonathanh@nvidia.com, joro@8bytes.org, krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, lizefan.x@bytedance.com, marcan@marcan.st, mhiramat@kernel.org, m.szyprowski@samsung.com, paulmck@kernel.org, rdunlap@infradead.org, samuel@sholland.org, suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com, sven@svenpeter.dev, thierry.reding@gmail.com, tj@kernel.org, tomas.mudrunka@gmail.com, vdumpa@nvidia.com, wens@csie.org, will@kernel.org, yu-cheng.yu@intel.com, rientjes@google.com, bagasdotme@gmail.com, mkoutny@suse.com References: <20240207174102.1486130-1-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com> <20240207174102.1486130-2-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com> <8ce2cd7b-7702-45aa-b4c8-25a01c27ed83@arm.com> From: Robin Murphy In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20240213_092635_450898_E5843F23 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 16.31 ) X-BeenThere: linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Upstream kernel work for Rockchip platforms List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: "Linux-rockchip" Errors-To: linux-rockchip-bounces+linux-rockchip=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On 10/02/2024 2:21 am, Pasha Tatashin wrote: [...] >>> +/** >>> + * iommu_alloc_pages_node - allocate a zeroed page of a given order from >>> + * specific NUMA node. >>> + * @nid: memory NUMA node id >>> + * @gfp: buddy allocator flags >>> + * @order: page order >>> + * >>> + * returns the virtual address of the allocated page >>> + */ >>> +static inline void *iommu_alloc_pages_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp, int order) >>> +{ >>> + struct page *page = __iommu_alloc_pages_node(nid, gfp, order); >>> + >>> + if (unlikely(!page)) >>> + return NULL; >> >> As a general point I'd prefer to fold these checks into the accounting >> function itself rather than repeat them all over. > > For the free functions this saves a few cycles by not repeating this > check again inside __free_pages(), to keep things symmetrical it makes > sense to keep __iomu_free_account and __iomu_alloc_account the same. > With the other clean-up there are not that many of these checks left. __free_pages() doesn't accept NULL, so __iommu_free_pages() shouldn't need a check; free_pages() does, but correspondingly iommu_free_pages() needs its own check up-front to avoid virt_to_page(NULL); either way it means there are no callers of iommu_free_account() who should be passing NULL. The VA-returning allocators of course need to avoid page_address(NULL), so I clearly made this comment in the wrong place to begin with, oops. In the end I guess that will leave __iommu_alloc_pages() as the only caller of iommu_alloc_account() who doesn't already need to handle their own NULL. OK, I'm convinced, apologies for having to bounce it off you to work it through :) >>> + */ >>> +static inline void *iommu_alloc_page_node(int nid, gfp_t gfp) >>> +{ >>> + return iommu_alloc_pages_node(nid, gfp, 0); >>> +} >> >> TBH I'm not entirely convinced that saving 4 characters per invocation >> times 11 invocations makes this wrapper worthwhile :/ > > Let's keep them. After the clean-up that you suggested, there are > fewer functions left in this file, but I think that it is cleaner to > keep these remaining, as it is beneficial to easily distinguish when > exactly one page is allocated vs when multiple are allocated via code > search. But is it, really? It's not at all obvious to me *why* it would be significantly interesting to distinguish fixed order-0 allocations from higher-order or variable-order (which may still be 0) ones. After all, there's no regular alloc_page_node() wrapper, yet plenty more callers of alloc_pages_node(..., 0) :/ Thanks, Robin. _______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip