On 2020-08-20 13:49, vji...@codeaurora.org wrote:
From: Vijayanand Jitta <vji...@codeaurora.org>

When ever a new iova alloc request comes iova is always searched
from the cached node and the nodes which are previous to cached
node. So, even if there is free iova space available in the nodes
which are next to the cached node iova allocation can still fail
because of this approach.

Consider the following sequence of iova alloc and frees on
1GB of iova space

1) alloc - 500MB
2) alloc - 12MB
3) alloc - 499MB
4) free -  12MB which was allocated in step 2
5) alloc - 13MB

After the above sequence we will have 12MB of free iova space and
cached node will be pointing to the iova pfn of last alloc of 13MB
which will be the lowest iova pfn of that iova space. Now if we get an
alloc request of 2MB we just search from cached node and then look
for lower iova pfn's for free iova and as they aren't any, iova alloc
fails though there is 12MB of free iova space.

To avoid such iova search failures do a retry from the last rb tree node
when iova search fails, this will search the entire tree and get an iova
if its available.

Signed-off-by: Vijayanand Jitta <vji...@codeaurora.org>
---
  drivers/iommu/iova.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++------
  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iova.c b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
index 49fc01f..4e77116 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/iova.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
@@ -184,8 +184,9 @@ static int __alloc_and_insert_iova_range(struct iova_domain 
*iovad,
        struct rb_node *curr, *prev;
        struct iova *curr_iova;
        unsigned long flags;
-       unsigned long new_pfn;
+       unsigned long new_pfn, low_pfn_new;
        unsigned long align_mask = ~0UL;
+       unsigned long high_pfn = limit_pfn, low_pfn = iovad->start_pfn;
if (size_aligned)
                align_mask <<= fls_long(size - 1);
@@ -198,15 +199,25 @@ static int __alloc_and_insert_iova_range(struct 
iova_domain *iovad,
curr = __get_cached_rbnode(iovad, limit_pfn);
        curr_iova = rb_entry(curr, struct iova, node);
+       low_pfn_new = curr_iova->pfn_hi + 1;

Could we call "low_pfn_new" something like "retry_pfn" instead? This code already has unavoidable readability struggles with so many different "pfn"s in play, so having two different meanings of "new" really doesn't help.

Other than that, I think this looks OK (IIRC it's basically what I originally suggested), so with the naming tweaked,

Reviewed-by: Robin Murphy <robin.mur...@arm.com>

+
+retry:
        do {
-               limit_pfn = min(limit_pfn, curr_iova->pfn_lo);
-               new_pfn = (limit_pfn - size) & align_mask;
+               high_pfn = min(high_pfn, curr_iova->pfn_lo);
+               new_pfn = (high_pfn - size) & align_mask;
                prev = curr;
                curr = rb_prev(curr);
                curr_iova = rb_entry(curr, struct iova, node);
-       } while (curr && new_pfn <= curr_iova->pfn_hi);
-
-       if (limit_pfn < size || new_pfn < iovad->start_pfn) {
+       } while (curr && new_pfn <= curr_iova->pfn_hi && new_pfn >= low_pfn);
+
+       if (high_pfn < size || new_pfn < low_pfn) {
+               if (low_pfn == iovad->start_pfn && low_pfn_new < limit_pfn) {
+                       high_pfn = limit_pfn;
+                       low_pfn = low_pfn_new;
+                       curr = &iovad->anchor.node;
+                       curr_iova = rb_entry(curr, struct iova, node);
+                       goto retry;
+               }
                iovad->max32_alloc_size = size;
                goto iova32_full;
        }

_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu

Reply via email to