Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] swiotlb: Reduce swiotlb pool lookups

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>]

On Sun, Jul 07, 2024 at 02:11:48AM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote:
> This works pretty well. It certainly avoids the messiness of declaring
> a "pool" local variable and needing a separate assignment before the
> "if" statement, in each of the 9 call sites. The small downside is that
> it looks like a swiotlb function is called every time, even though
> there's usually an inline bailout. But that pattern occurs throughout
> the kernel, so not a big deal.
> 
> I initially coded this change as a separate patch that goes first. But
> the second patch ends up changing about 20 lines that are changed
> by the first patch. It's hard to cleanly tease them apart. So I've gone
> back to a single unified patch. But let me know if you think it's worth
> the extra churn to break them apart.

I think it's perfectly fine to keep one big patch.

> Yes, this works as long as the declarations for the __swiotlb_foo
> functions are *not* under CONFIG_SWIOTLB. But when compiling with
> !CONFIG_SWIOTLB on arm64 with gcc-8.5.0, two tangentially related
> compile errors occur. iommu_dma_map_page() references
> swiotlb_tlb_map_single(). The declaration for the latter is under
> CONFIG_SWIOTLB. A similar problem occurs with dma_direct_map_page()
> and swiotlb_map(). Do later versions of gcc not complain when the
> reference is in dead code? Or are these just bugs that occurred because
> !CONFIG_SWIOTLB is rare? If the latter, I can submit a separate patch to
> move the declarations out from under CONFIG_SWIOTLB.

A reference to dead code is fine as long as the condition is a compile
time one.  I think your next mail sugests you've sorted this out, but
if not let me know or just shared your current work in progress patch.

> > 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SWIOTLB_DYNAMIC)) {
> 
> The "IS_ENABLED" doesn't work because the dma_uses_io_tlb
> field in struct dev is under CONFIG_SWIOTLB_DYNAMIC. I guess
> it could be moved out, but that's going further afield. So I'm back
> to using #ifdef.

Yes, we'd need the field definition.

> Petr Tesařík had commented [1] on my original RFC suggesting that
> __swiotlb_find_pool() be used here instead of open coding it. With
> the changes you suggest, __swiotlb_find_pool() is needed only in
> the CONFIG_SWIOTLB_DYNAMIC case, and I would be fine with just
> open coding the address of defpool here. Petr -- are you OK with
> removing __swiotlb_find_pool when !CONFIG_SWIOTLB_DYNAMIC,
> since this is the only place it would be used?

Yes.  That was indeed the intent behind the suggstion.