Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] introduce static_vm for ARM-specific static mappedarea

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Will Deacon wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 01:28:51AM +0000, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > In current implementation, we used ARM-specific flag, that is,
> > VM_ARM_STATIC_MAPPING, for distinguishing ARM specific static mapped area.
> > The purpose of static mapped area is to re-use static mapped area when
> > entire physical address range of the ioremap request can be covered
> > by this area.
> > 
> > This implementation causes needless overhead for some cases.
> > For example, assume that there is only one static mapped area and
> > vmlist has 300 areas. Every time we call ioremap, we check 300 areas for
> > deciding whether it is matched or not. Moreover, even if there is
> > no static mapped area and vmlist has 300 areas, every time we call
> > ioremap, we check 300 areas in now.
> > 
> > If we construct a extra list for static mapped area, we can eliminate
> > above mentioned overhead.
> > With a extra list, if there is one static mapped area,
> > we just check only one area and proceed next operation quickly.
> > 
> > In fact, it is not a critical problem, because ioremap is not frequently
> > used. But reducing overhead is better idea.
> > 
> > Another reason for doing this work is for removing vm_struct list management,
> > entirely. For more information, look at the following link.
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/6/184
> 
> First patch looks good (removing the unused vmregion stuff) but I'm not so
> sure about the rest of it. If you really care about ioremap performance,
> perhaps it would be better to have a container struct around the vm_struct
> for static mappings and then stick them in an augmented rbtree so you can
> efficiently find the mapping encompassing a particular physical address?

How can ioremap performance be a problem is the question I had since the 
beginning.

Firstly, ioremap is _not_ meant to be used in performance critical 
paths.

Secondly, there shouldn't be _that_ many entries on the vmlist such as 
300.  That sounds a bit excessive.

So please, can we discuss the reasons that motivated those patches in 
the first place?  Maybe that's where the actual problem is.


Nicolas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/