On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 05:59:40PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On relatively slow development platforms and software models, the
> inefficiency of our TLB sync loop tends not to show up - for instance on
> a Juno r1 board I typically see the TLBI has completed of its own accord
> by the time we get to the sync, such that the latter finishes instantly.
>
> However, on larger systems doing real I/O, it's less realistic for the
> TLBs to go idle immediately, and at that point falling into the 1MHz
> polling loop turns out to throw away performance drastically. Let's
> strike a balance by polling more than once between pauses, such that we
> have much more chance of catching normal operations completing before
> committing to the fixed delay, but also backing off exponentially, since
> if a sync really hasn't completed within one or two "reasonable time"
> periods, it becomes increasingly unlikely that it ever will.
>
> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.mur...@arm.com>
> ---
> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Thanks, I like this patch.
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
> index f7411109670f..aa17f3d937a0 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
> @@ -162,6 +162,7 @@
> #define ARM_SMMU_GR0_sTLBGSTATUS 0x74
> #define sTLBGSTATUS_GSACTIVE (1 << 0)
> #define TLB_LOOP_TIMEOUT 1000000 /* 1s! */
> +#define TLB_SPIN_COUNT 10
>
> /* Stream mapping registers */
> #define ARM_SMMU_GR0_SMR(n) (0x800 + ((n) << 2))
> @@ -574,18 +575,17 @@ static void __arm_smmu_free_bitmap(unsigned long *map,
> int idx)
> static void __arm_smmu_tlb_sync(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
> void __iomem *sync, void __iomem *status)
> {
> - int count = 0;
> + unsigned int spin_count, delay;
>
> writel_relaxed(0, sync);
> - while (readl_relaxed(status) & sTLBGSTATUS_GSACTIVE) {
> - cpu_relax();
> - if (++count == TLB_LOOP_TIMEOUT) {
> - dev_err_ratelimited(smmu->dev,
> - "TLB sync timed out -- SMMU may be deadlocked\n");
> - return;
> - }
> - udelay(1);
> + for (delay = 1; delay < TLB_LOOP_TIMEOUT; delay *= 2) {
> + for (spin_count = TLB_SPIN_COUNT; spin_count > 0; spin_count--)
> + if (!(readl_relaxed(status) & sTLBGSTATUS_GSACTIVE))
> + return;
Can you keep the cpu_relax in the inner loop please?
> + udelay(delay);
> }
> + dev_err_ratelimited(smmu->dev,
> + "TLB sync timed out -- SMMU may be deadlocked\n");
Whilst we can have WFE-based spinning with SMMUv3, I suppose we should
do something similar in queue_poll_cons... Fancy taking a look?
Will
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
