From: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>, <joro@8bytes.org>,
<will@kernel.org>
Cc: <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>, <hch@lst.de>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/dma: Add config for PCI SAC address trick
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 11:20:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7ced25fb-9048-3df8-a62c-bfcb29176579@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ef8abf1c6b0839e39b272738fc7bc4d9699c8bcb.1652895419.git.robin.murphy@arm.com>
On 18/05/2022 18:36, Robin Murphy wrote:
> For devices stuck behind a conventional PCI bus, saving extra cycles at
> 33MHz is probably fairly significant. However since native PCI Express
> is now the norm for high-performance devices, the optimisation to always
> prefer 32-bit addresses for the sake of avoiding DAC is starting to look
> rather anachronistic. Technically 32-bit addresses do have shorter TLPs
> on PCIe, but unless the device is saturating its link bandwidth with
> small transfers it seems unlikely that the difference is appreciable.
>
> What definitely is appreciable, however, is that the IOVA allocator
> doesn't behave all that well once the 32-bit space starts getting full.
> As DMA working sets get bigger, this optimisation increasingly backfires
> and adds considerable overhead to the dma_map path for use-cases like
> high-bandwidth networking. We've increasingly bandaged the allocator
> in attempts to mitigate this, but it remains fundamentally at odds with
> other valid requirements to try as hard as possible to satisfy a request
> within the given limit; what we really need is to just avoid this odd
> notion of a speculative allocation when it isn't beneficial anyway.
>
> Unfortunately that's where things get awkward... Having been present on
> x86 for 15 years or so now, it turns out there are systems which fail to
> properly define the upper limit of usable IOVA space for certain devices
> and this trick was the only thing letting them work OK. I had a similar
> ulterior motive for a couple of early arm64 systems when originally
> adding it to iommu-dma, but those really should now be fixed with proper
> firmware bindings, and other arm64 users really need it out of the way,
> so let's just leave it default-on for x86.
>
> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
> ---
> drivers/iommu/Kconfig | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c | 2 +-
It might be worth printing this default value always and not just for
when it is set from commandline, like what we do for default domain type
and IOTLB invalidation policy
> 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/Kconfig b/drivers/iommu/Kconfig
> index c79a0df090c0..bf9b295f1c89 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/Kconfig
> @@ -144,6 +144,30 @@ config IOMMU_DMA
> select IRQ_MSI_IOMMU
> select NEED_SG_DMA_LENGTH
>
> +config IOMMU_DMA_PCI_SAC_OPT
> + bool "Enable 64-bit legacy PCI optimisation by default"
> + depends on IOMMU_DMA
> + default X86
Do we have a strategy for if and when issues start popping up on other
architectures? Is it to simply tell them to just turn this flag on (and
also fix your platform)?
> + help
> + Enable by default an IOMMU optimisation for 64-bit legacy PCI devices,
> + wherein the DMA API layer will always first try to allocate a 32-bit
> + DMA address suitable for a single address cycle, before falling back
> + to allocating from the full usable address range. If your system has
> + 64-bit legacy PCI devices in 32-bit slots where using dual address
> + cycles reduces DMA throughput significantly, this optimisation may be
> + beneficial to overall performance.
> +
> + If you have a modern PCI Express based system, it should usually be
> + safe to say "n" here and avoid the potential extra allocation overhead.
> + However, beware that this optimisation has also historically papered
> + over bugs where the IOMMU address range above 32 bits is not fully
> + usable. If device DMA problems and/or IOMMU faults start occurring
> + with IOMMU translation enabled after disabling this option, it is
> + likely a sign of a latent driver or firmware/BIOS bug.
> +
> + If this option is not set, the optimisation can be enabled at
> + boot time with the "iommu.forcedac=0" command-line argument.
> +
Thanks,
John
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-19 10:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-18 17:36 Robin Murphy
2022-05-19 7:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-05-19 10:20 ` John Garry [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7ced25fb-9048-3df8-a62c-bfcb29176579@huawei.com \
--to=john.garry@huawei.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®