Re: [PATCH 4/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Remove cmpxchg() in arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist()

[John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>]

>>
>> I'd say that GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK() should be able to handle a l=0 and
>> h=unsigned value, so I doubt this warn.
>>
>> Using GENMASK((int)cmdq->q.llq.max_n_shift, 0) resolves it, but it looks
>> like GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK() could be improved.
> 
> That said, I think this particular case might be even better off dodging
> GENMASK() entirely, by doing something like this first. Untested...
> 
> Robin.
> 
> ----->8-----
> Subject: [PATCH] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Streamline queue calculations
> 
> Beyond the initial queue setup based on the log2 values from ID
> registers, the log2 queue size is only ever used in the form of
> (1 << max_n_shift) to repeatedly recalculate the number of queue
> elements. Simply storing it in that form leads to slightly more
> efficient code, particularly in the low-level queue accessors
> where it counts most:
> 
> add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 1/7 up/down: 4/-120 (-116)
> Function                                     old     new   delta
> arm_smmu_init_one_queue                      360     364      +4
> arm_smmu_priq_thread                         512     508      -4
> arm_smmu_evtq_thread                         300     292      -8
> __arm_smmu_cmdq_poll_set_valid_map.isra      296     288      -8
> queue_remove_raw                             180     164     -16
> arm_smmu_gerror_handler                      732     716     -16
> arm_smmu_device_probe                       4312    4284     -28
> arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist                 1892    1852     -40
> Total: Before=20135, After=20019, chg -0.58%
> 
> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
> ---

[...]


>   	}
>   
> -	smmu->evtq.q.llq.max_n_shift = min_t(u32, EVTQ_MAX_SZ_SHIFT,
> -					     FIELD_GET(IDR1_EVTQS, reg));
> -	smmu->priq.q.llq.max_n_shift = min_t(u32, PRIQ_MAX_SZ_SHIFT,
> -					     FIELD_GET(IDR1_PRIQS, reg));
> +	max_n_shift = min_t(u32, EVTQ_MAX_SZ_SHIFT, FIELD_GET(IDR1_EVTQS, reg));
> +	smmu->evtq.q.llq.max_n = 1 << max_n_shift;

So I require the bitmask of this for the prod, which would be (max_n << 
1) - 1.

I don't feel too strongly either way, and the other big changes in this 
series need to be considered first...

Thanks,
John

> +
> +	max_n_shift = min_t(u32, PRIQ_MAX_SZ_SHIFT, FIELD_GET(IDR1_PRIQS, reg));
> +	smmu->priq.q.llq.max_n = 1 << max_n_shift;
>   
>   	/* SID/SSID sizes */
>   	smmu->ssid_bits = FIELD_GET(IDR1_SSIDSIZE, reg);
>