Re: [PATCH 3/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Use NUMA memory allocations for stream tables and comamnd queues

[Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>]

Hi Robin,

On 2017-09-21 13:58, Robin Murphy wrote:
> [+Christoph and Marek]
>
> On 21/09/17 09:59, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
>> Introduce smmu_alloc_coherent and smmu_free_coherent functions to
>> allocate/free dma coherent memory from NUMA node associated with SMMU.
>> Replace all calls of dmam_alloc_coherent with smmu_alloc_coherent
>> for SMMU stream tables and command queues.
> This doesn't work - not only do you lose the 'managed' aspect and risk
> leaking various tables on probe failure or device removal, but more
> importantly, unless you add DMA syncs around all the CPU accesses to the
> tables, you lose the critical 'coherent' aspect, and that's a horribly
> invasive change that I really don't want to make.
>
> Christoph, Marek; how reasonable do you think it is to expect
> dma_alloc_coherent() to be inherently NUMA-aware on NUMA-capable
> systems? SWIOTLB looks fairly straightforward to fix up (for the simple
> allocation case; I'm not sure it's even worth it for bounce-buffering),
> but the likes of CMA might be a little trickier...

I'm not sure if there is any dma-coherent implementation that is NUMA aware.

Maybe author should provide some benchmarks, which show that those 
structures
should be allocated in NUMA-aware way?

On the other hand it is not that hard to add required dma_sync_* calls 
around
all the code which updated those tables.

 > ...

Best regards
-- 
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>