Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Optimize iommu_map_sg() performance
From: isaacm
Date: Thu Jan 21 2021 - 16:46:24 EST
On 2021-01-12 08:00, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 2021-01-11 14:54, Isaac J. Manjarres wrote:
The iommu_map_sg() code currently iterates through the given
scatter-gather list, and in the worst case, invokes iommu_map()
for each element in the scatter-gather list, which calls into
the IOMMU driver through an indirect call. For an IOMMU driver
that uses a format supported by the io-pgtable code, the IOMMU
driver will then call into the io-pgtable code to map the chunk.
Jumping between the IOMMU core code, the IOMMU driver, and the
io-pgtable code and back for each element in a scatter-gather list
is not efficient.
Instead, add a map_sg() hook in both the IOMMU driver ops and the
io-pgtable ops. iommu_map_sg() can then call into the IOMMU driver's
map_sg() hook with the entire scatter-gather list, which can call
into the io-pgtable map_sg() hook, which can process the entire
scatter-gather list, signficantly reducing the number of indirect
calls, and jumps between these layers, boosting performance.
Out of curiosity, how much of the difference is attributable to actual
indirect call overhead vs. the additional massive reduction in visits
to arm_smmu_rpm_{get,put} that you fail to mention?There are ways to
I did an experiment where I compared the two approaches without any
calls
to arm_smmu_rpm_[get/put]. There's still a large amount of difference
without the overhead incurred by power management calls. Here are the
results:
no optimizations and no power management calls:
size iommu_map_sg
4K 0.609 us
64K 8.583 us
1M 136.083 us
2M 273.145 us
12M 1442.119 us
24M 2876.078 us
32M 3832.041 us
iommu_map_sg optimizations and no power management calls:
size iommu_map_sg
4K 0.645 us
64K 1.229 us
1M 9.531 us
2M 23.198 us
12M 99.250 us
24M 185.713 us
32M 248.781 us
From here, we can see that the amount of latency incurred by the
indirect
calls is fairly large.
optimise indirect calling that would benefit *all* cases, rather than
just one operation for one particular driver.
Do you mind sharing some more information on how to optimize the
existing
approach further, such that it benefits other drivers as well?
On a system that uses the ARM SMMU driver, and the ARM LPAE format,
the current implementation of iommu_map_sg() yields the following
latencies for mapping scatter-gather lists of various sizes. These
latencies are calculated by repeating the mapping operation 10 times:
size iommu_map_sg latency
4K 0.624 us
64K 9.468 us
1M 122.557 us
2M 239.807 us
12M 1435.979 us
24M 2884.968 us
32M 3832.979 us
On the same system, the proposed modifications yield the following
results:
size iommu_map_sg latency
4K 3.645 us
64K 4.198 us
1M 11.010 us
2M 17.125 us
12M 82.416 us
24M 158.677 us
32M 210.468 us
The procedure for collecting the iommu_map_sg latencies is
the same in both experiments. Clearly, reducing the jumps
between the different layers in the IOMMU code offers a
signficant performance boost in iommu_map_sg() latency.
Presumably those are deliberately worst-case numbers? After all, a
32MB scatterlist *could* incur less overhead than a 64KB one if things
line up just right (still 16 ->map calls, but each with one fewer
Yes, these are worst case numbers (i.e. a buffer is composed entirely
of 4 KB pages, so higher order mappings don't get used).
level of pagetable to traverse). TBH I find the significant regression
of the 4KB case the most interesting - what's going on there?
That was an error on my part. After fixing my error, I observed that the
time spent mapping the 4 KB buffer is comparable with and without
optimizations,
which is expected.
My main reservation here is that we get an explosion of duplicate
copies of almost the same code, and it's code that's just non-trivial
enough to start being bug-prone. And it's all still only for one
specific operation - your argument about calling through multiple
layers for each element applies just as much to iommu_map() itself, so
why aren't we trying to make more fundamental improvements with wider
benefits? Indeed I can't imagine the existing iommu_map_sg() loop
really adds significant overhead compared to a single iommu_map() call
that results in the equivalent set of ->map calls to the driver.
At a glance, I reckon that simply extending the internal ->map and
->unmap interfaces to encode a number of consecutive identical pages
would already get us a large chunk of the way there; then we'd be in a
better place to consider options for the io-pgtable interface.
Do you mean physically contiguous pages? If so, that still wouldn't help
the
case where a buffer is composed entirely of 4 KB pages, correct?
Robin.
Changes since v1:
-Fixed an off by one error in arm_[lpae/v7s]_map_by_pgsize
when checking if the IOVA and physical address ranges being
mapped are within the appropriate limits.
-Added Sai Prakash Ranjan's "Tested-by" tag.
Thanks,
Isaac
Isaac J. Manjarres (5):
iommu/io-pgtable: Introduce map_sg() as a page table op
iommu/io-pgtable-arm: Hook up map_sg()
iommu/io-pgtable-arm-v7s: Hook up map_sg()
iommu: Introduce map_sg() as an IOMMU op for IOMMU drivers
iommu/arm-smmu: Hook up map_sg()
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c | 19 ++++++++
drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm-v7s.c | 90
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c | 86
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 25 ++++++++--
include/linux/io-pgtable.h | 6 +++
include/linux/iommu.h | 13 +++++
6 files changed, 234 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel