Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 0/4] iommu/iova: Solve longterm IOVA issue | From | John Garry <> | Date | Thu, 3 Dec 2020 14:54:27 +0000 |
| |
On 03/12/2020 06:04, Dmitry Safonov wrote: > On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 21:50, Will Deacon<will@kernel.org> wrote: >> On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 18:25:30 +0800, John Garry wrote: >>> This series contains a patch to solve the longterm IOVA issue which >>> leizhen originally tried to address at [0]. >>> >>> A sieved kernel log is at the following, showing periodic dumps of IOVA >>> sizes, per CPU and per depot bin, per IOVA size granule: >>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hisilicon/kernel-dev/topic-iommu-5.10-iova-debug-v3/aging_test >>> >>> [...] >> Applied the final patch to arm64 (for-next/iommu/iova), thanks! >> >> [4/4] iommu: avoid taking iova_rbtree_lock twice >> https://git.kernel.org/arm64/c/3a651b3a27a1 > Glad it made in next, 2 years ago I couldn't convince iommu maintainer > it's worth it (but with a different justification): > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/20180621180823.805-3-dima@arista.com/
Hi Dmitry,
I was unaware of your series, and it’s unfortunate that your optimization never made it. However I was having a quick look there, and, in case you did not notice, that the code which you were proposing changing in patch #1 for intel-iommu.c was removed in e70b081c6f37 ("iommu/vt-d: Remove IOVA handling code from the non-dma_ops path").
BTW, split_and_remove_iova() has no in-tree users anymore, so I can send a patch to delete if nobody else wants to.
BTW2, there's some more patches in my series which could use a review if you're feeling very helpful :)
Cheers, John
| |