Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Mar 2022 11:32:45 +0000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] iommu/iova: Improve 32-bit free space estimate | From | Robin Murphy <> |
| |
On 2022-03-04 09:41, Joerg Roedel wrote: > On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 07:36:46AM +0800, Miles Chen wrote: >> Hi Robin, >> >>> For various reasons based on the allocator behaviour and typical >>> use-cases at the time, when the max32_alloc_size optimisation was >>> introduced it seemed reasonable to couple the reset of the tracked >>> size to the update of cached32_node upon freeing a relevant IOVA. >>> However, since subsequent optimisations focused on helping genuine >>> 32-bit devices make best use of even more limited address spaces, it >>> is now a lot more likely for cached32_node to be anywhere in a "full" >>> 32-bit address space, and as such more likely for space to become >>> available from IOVAs below that node being freed. >>> >>> At this point, the short-cut in __cached_rbnode_delete_update() really >>> doesn't hold up any more, and we need to fix the logic to reliably >>> provide the expected behaviour. We still want cached32_node to only move >>> upwards, but we should reset the allocation size if *any* 32-bit space >>> has become available. >>> >>> Reported-by: Yunfei Wang <yf.wang@mediatek.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> >> >> Would you mind adding: >> >> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> > > Applied without stable tag for now. If needed, please consider > re-sending it for stable when this patch is merged upstream.
Yeah, having figured out the history, I ended up with the opinion that it was a missed corner-case optimisation opportunity, rather than an actual error with respect to intent or implementation, so I intentionally left that out. Plus figuring out an exact Fixes tag might be tricky - as above I reckon it probably only started to become significant somwehere around 5.11 or so.
All of these various levels of retry mechanisms are only a best-effort thing, and ultimately if you're making large allocations from a small space there are always going to be *some* circumstances that still manage to defeat them. Over time, we've made them try harder, but that fact that we haven't yet made them try hard enough to work well for a particular use-case does not constitute a bug. However as Joerg says, anyone's welcome to make a case to Greg to backport a mainline commit if it's a low-risk change with significant benefit to real-world stable kernel users.
Thanks all!
Robin.
| |