On 04/07/2018 02:54 AM, Wang, Haiyue wrote:
Hi Corey,
Since IPMI 2.0 just defined minimum, no maximum:
----
KCS/SMIC Input : Required: 40 bytes IPMI Message, minimum
KCS/SMIC Output : Required: 38 bytes IPMI Message, minimum
Yes, though there are practical maximums that are much smaller than 1000
bytes.
----
We can enlarge the block size for avoiding waste, and make our driver
support most worst message size case. And I think this patch make
checking
simple (from 3 to 1), and the code clean, this is the biggest reason I
want to
change. The TLB is just memory management study from book, no data to
support access improvement. :)
I would argue that the way it is now expresses the intent of the code better
than one allocation split into three parts. Expressing your intent is more
important than the number of checks and a minuscule performance
improvement. For me it makes the code easier to understand. If you had
a tool that checked for out-of-bounds memory access, then a single
allocation
might not find an overrun between the parts. Smaller allocations tend
to result in less memory fragmentation.
My preference is to leave it as it is. However, it's not that
important, and
if you really want this patch, I can include it.
Thanks,
-corey
BR,
Haiyue
On 2018-04-07 10:37, Wang, Haiyue wrote:
On 2018-04-07 05:47, Corey Minyard wrote:
On 03/15/2018 07:20 AM, Haiyue Wang wrote:
Allocate a continuous memory block for the three KCS data buffers with
related index assignment.
I'm finally getting to this.
Is there a reason you want to do this? In general, it's better to
not try to
outsmart your base system. Depending on the memory allocator, in this
case, you might actually use more memory. You probably won't use any
less.
I got this idea from another code review, but that patch allocates 30
more
the same size memory block, reducing the devm_kmalloc call will be
better.
For KCS only have 3, may be the key point is memory waste.
In the original case, you allocate three 1000 byte buffers,
resulting in 3
1024 byte slab allocated.
In the changed case, you will allocate a 3000 byte buffer, resulting in
a single 4096 byte slab allocation, wasting 1024 more bytes of memory.
As the kcs has memory copy between in/out/kbuffer, put them in the same
page will be better ? Such as the same TLB ? (Well, I just got this
from book,
no real experience of memory accessing performance. And also, I was told
that using space to save the time. :-)).
Just my stupid thinking. I'm OK to drop this patch if it doesn't help
with
performance, or something else.
BR.
Haiyue
-corey
Signed-off-by: Haiyue Wang <haiyue.w...@linux.intel.com>
---
drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c | 10 ++++++----
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c
index fbfc05e..dc19c0d 100644
--- a/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c
+++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c
@@ -435,6 +435,7 @@ static const struct file_operations
kcs_bmc_fops = {
struct kcs_bmc *kcs_bmc_alloc(struct device *dev, int
sizeof_priv, u32 channel)
{
struct kcs_bmc *kcs_bmc;
+ void *buf;
kcs_bmc = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*kcs_bmc) + sizeof_priv,
GFP_KERNEL);
if (!kcs_bmc)
@@ -448,11 +449,12 @@ struct kcs_bmc *kcs_bmc_alloc(struct device
*dev, int sizeof_priv, u32 channel)
mutex_init(&kcs_bmc->mutex);
init_waitqueue_head(&kcs_bmc->queue);
- kcs_bmc->data_in = devm_kmalloc(dev, KCS_MSG_BUFSIZ,
GFP_KERNEL);
- kcs_bmc->data_out = devm_kmalloc(dev, KCS_MSG_BUFSIZ,
GFP_KERNEL);
- kcs_bmc->kbuffer = devm_kmalloc(dev, KCS_MSG_BUFSIZ, GFP_KERNEL);
- if (!kcs_bmc->data_in || !kcs_bmc->data_out || !kcs_bmc->kbuffer)
+ buf = devm_kmalloc_array(dev, 3, KCS_MSG_BUFSIZ, GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!buf)
return NULL;
+ kcs_bmc->data_in = buf;
+ kcs_bmc->data_out = buf + KCS_MSG_BUFSIZ;
+ kcs_bmc->kbuffer = buf + KCS_MSG_BUFSIZ * 2;
kcs_bmc->miscdev.minor = MISC_DYNAMIC_MINOR;
kcs_bmc->miscdev.name = dev_name(dev);
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Openipmi-developer mailing list
Openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openipmi-developer
