From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarkko Sakkinen Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: fix cacheline alignment for DMA-able buffers Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 12:46:10 +0300 Message-ID: <20160809094610.GA13566@intel.com> References: <1469761153-85576-1-git-send-email-apronin@chromium.org> <20160729172702.GB7020@obsidianresearch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: Jason Gunthorpe , Andrey Pronin , Peter Huewe , Marcel Selhorst , Christophe Ricard , tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:30:22AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Jason Gunthorpe > wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 07:59:13PM -0700, Andrey Pronin wrote: > > Annotate buffers used in spi transactions as ____cacheline_aligned > > to use in DMA transfers. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Pronin > >  drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c | 4 ++-- > >  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi.c  | 4 ++-- > >  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c > b/drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c > > index 9f5a011..0e9aad9 100644 > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/st33zp24/spi.c > > @@ -70,8 +70,8 @@ > >  struct st33zp24_spi_phy { > >       struct spi_device *spi_device; > > > > -     u8 tx_buf[ST33ZP24_SPI_BUFFER_SIZE]; > > -     u8 rx_buf[ST33ZP24_SPI_BUFFER_SIZE]; > > +     u8 tx_buf[ST33ZP24_SPI_BUFFER_SIZE] ____cacheline_aligned; > > +     u8 rx_buf[ST33ZP24_SPI_BUFFER_SIZE] ____cacheline_aligned; > > > >       int io_lpcpd; > >       int latency; > > Hurm, this still looks wrong to me. Aligning the start of buffers is > not enough, the DMA'able space must also end on a cache line as well. > > So, the buffers must also always be placed at the end of the struct. > > IMHO It would be cleaner and safer to always kmalloc the DMA buffer > alone than to try and optimize like this. > > In this case moving them to the end of the structure and commenting why > they have to be at the end might be less invasive change. More > performance-efficient and resilient in low memory situations too. kmallocs would be done in the driver initialization: * you rarely are in low memory situation * performance gain/loss is insignificant I really don't see your point. > Thanks, > Dmitry /Jarkko