On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 04:06:52PM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote: > > > On 2019/8/23 15:50, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:45:49AM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote: > >> v2 --> v3: > >> As Will Deacon's suggestion, I changed the lock type of > >> arm_smmu_domain.devices_lock from spinlock_t to rwlock_t, and I saw that > >> the > >> performance is all right. And further use nr_ats_masters to quickly check > >> have > >> no obvious effect, so I drop it. > > > > :/ > > > > I already sent two versions of a series fixing this without any locking at > > all on the ->unmap() path, and you were on cc. I've also queued that stuff > > up. > > > > Did you not receive my patches? > Sorry, my message filter setting is a bit wrong, must contains > "[email protected]", I have corrected it.
Ha, sounds like the opposite of my email filter ;) > > v1: > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/iommu/2019-August/038306.html > > v2: > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/iommu/2019-August/038374.html > OK, I will test it when it's my turn to use the board. Thanks, although I plan to send it to Joerg today so any changes will need to go on top. Does your testing involve ATS, or just non-ATS devices? I've tested the latter locally, although I haven't looked at the performance since most of the patches are trying to fix the enable/disable ordering. Thanks, Will _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
