On 8/21/20 1:47 PM, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) >> Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2020 7:27 AM >> To: 'Mike Kravetz' <mike.krav...@oracle.com>; h...@lst.de; >> m.szyprow...@samsung.com; robin.mur...@arm.com; w...@kernel.org; >> ganapatrao.kulka...@cavium.com; catalin.mari...@arm.com; >> a...@linux-foundation.org >> Cc: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org; >> linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; Zengtao (B) <prime.z...@hisilicon.com>; >> huangdaode <huangda...@huawei.com>; Linuxarm <linux...@huawei.com> >> Subject: RE: [PATCH v7 0/3] make dma_alloc_coherent NUMA-aware by >> per-NUMA CMA >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Mike Kravetz [mailto:mike.krav...@oracle.com] >>> Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2020 5:53 AM >>> To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) <song.bao....@hisilicon.com>; h...@lst.de; >>> m.szyprow...@samsung.com; robin.mur...@arm.com; w...@kernel.org; >>> ganapatrao.kulka...@cavium.com; catalin.mari...@arm.com; >>> a...@linux-foundation.org >>> Cc: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org; >>> linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; Zengtao (B) <prime.z...@hisilicon.com>; >>> huangdaode <huangda...@huawei.com>; Linuxarm >> <linux...@huawei.com> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/3] make dma_alloc_coherent NUMA-aware by >>> per-NUMA CMA >>> >>> Hi Barry, >>> Sorry for jumping in so late. >>> >>> On 8/21/20 4:33 AM, Barry Song wrote: >>>> >>>> with per-numa CMA, smmu will get memory from local numa node to save >>> command >>>> queues and page tables. that means dma_unmap latency will be shrunk >>> much. >>> >>> Since per-node CMA areas for hugetlb was introduced, I have been thinking >>> about the limited number of CMA areas. In most configurations, I believe >>> it is limited to 7. And, IIRC it is not something that can be changed at >>> runtime, you need to reconfig and rebuild to increase the number. In >> contrast >>> some configs have NODES_SHIFT set to 10. I wasn't too worried because of >>> the limited hugetlb use case. However, this series is adding another user >>> of per-node CMA areas. >>> >>> With more users, should try to sync up number of CMA areas and number of >>> nodes? Or, perhaps I am worrying about nothing? >> >> Hi Mike, >> The current limitation is 8. If the server has 4 nodes and we enable both >> pernuma >> CMA and hugetlb, the last node will fail to get one cma area as the default >> global cma area will take 1 of 8. So users need to change menuconfig. >> If the server has 8 nodes, we enable one of pernuma cma and hugetlb, one >> node >> will fail to get cma. >> >> We may set the default number of CMA areas as 8+MAX_NODES(if hugetlb >> enabled) + >> MAX_NODES(if pernuma cma enabled) if we don't expect users to change >> config, but >> right now hugetlb has not an option in Kconfig to enable or disable like >> pernuma cma >> has DMA_PERNUMA_CMA. > > I would prefer we make some changes like: > > config CMA_AREAS > int "Maximum count of the CMA areas" > depends on CMA > + default 19 if NUMA > default 7 > help > CMA allows to create CMA areas for particular purpose, mainly, > used as device private area. This parameter sets the maximum > number of CMA area in the system. > > - If unsure, leave the default value "7". > + If unsure, leave the default value "7" or "19" if NUMA is used. > > 1+ CONFIG_CMA_AREAS should be quite enough for almost all servers in the > markets. > > If 2 numa nodes, and both hugetlb cma and pernuma cma is enabled, we need 2*2 > + 1 = 5 > If 4 numa nodes, and both hugetlb cma and pernuma cma is enabled, we need 2*4 > + 1 = 9 -> default ARM64 config. > If 8 numa nodes, and both hugetlb cma and pernuma cma is enabled, we need 2*8 > + 1 = 17 > > The default value is supporting the most common case and is not going to > support those servers > with NODES_SHIFT=10, they can make their own config just like users need to > increase CMA_AREAS > if they add many cma areas in device tree in a system even without NUMA. > > How do you think, mike?
I'm OK with that. I really did not want to sidetrach this series. It is just something I thought about when looking at the hugetlb code. My 'to do' list includes looking at a way to make the number of CMA areas dynamic. -- Mike Kravetz _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
