| Message ID | 1490164067-12552-2-git-send-email-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | iommu/iova: improve the allocation performance of dma64 | expand |
On 22/03/17 06:27, Zhen Lei wrote: > Keep these four variables type consistent with the paramters of function > __alloc_and_insert_iova_range and the members of struct iova: > > 1. static int __alloc_and_insert_iova_range(struct iova_domain *iovad, > unsigned long size, unsigned long limit_pfn, > > 2. struct iova { > unsigned long pfn_hi; > unsigned long pfn_lo; > > In fact, limit_pfn is most likely larger than 32 bits on DMA64. FWIW if pad_size manages to overflow an int something's probably gone horribly wrong, but there's no harm in making it consistent with everything else here. However, given that patch #6 makes this irrelevant anyway, do we really need to bother? Robin. > Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> > --- > drivers/iommu/iova.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iova.c b/drivers/iommu/iova.c > index b7268a1..8ba8b496 100644 > --- a/drivers/iommu/iova.c > +++ b/drivers/iommu/iova.c > @@ -104,8 +104,8 @@ __cached_rbnode_delete_update(struct iova_domain *iovad, struct iova *free) > * Computes the padding size required, to make the start address > * naturally aligned on the power-of-two order of its size > */ > -static unsigned int > -iova_get_pad_size(unsigned int size, unsigned int limit_pfn) > +static unsigned long > +iova_get_pad_size(unsigned long size, unsigned long limit_pfn) > { > return (limit_pfn + 1 - size) & (__roundup_pow_of_two(size) - 1); > } > @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static int __alloc_and_insert_iova_range(struct iova_domain *iovad, > struct rb_node *prev, *curr = NULL; > unsigned long flags; > unsigned long saved_pfn; > - unsigned int pad_size = 0; > + unsigned long pad_size = 0; > > /* Walk the tree backwards */ > spin_lock_irqsave(&iovad->iova_rbtree_lock, flags); >
On 2017/3/23 19:42, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 22/03/17 06:27, Zhen Lei wrote: >> Keep these four variables type consistent with the paramters of function >> __alloc_and_insert_iova_range and the members of struct iova: >> >> 1. static int __alloc_and_insert_iova_range(struct iova_domain *iovad, >> unsigned long size, unsigned long limit_pfn, >> >> 2. struct iova { >> unsigned long pfn_hi; >> unsigned long pfn_lo; >> >> In fact, limit_pfn is most likely larger than 32 bits on DMA64. > > FWIW if pad_size manages to overflow an int something's probably gone > horribly wrong, but there's no harm in making it consistent with > everything else here. However, given that patch #6 makes this irrelevant > anyway, do we really need to bother? Because I'm not sure whether patch #6 can be applied or not. > > Robin. > >> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> >> --- >> drivers/iommu/iova.c | 6 +++--- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iova.c b/drivers/iommu/iova.c >> index b7268a1..8ba8b496 100644 >> --- a/drivers/iommu/iova.c >> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iova.c >> @@ -104,8 +104,8 @@ __cached_rbnode_delete_update(struct iova_domain *iovad, struct iova *free) >> * Computes the padding size required, to make the start address >> * naturally aligned on the power-of-two order of its size >> */ >> -static unsigned int >> -iova_get_pad_size(unsigned int size, unsigned int limit_pfn) >> +static unsigned long >> +iova_get_pad_size(unsigned long size, unsigned long limit_pfn) >> { >> return (limit_pfn + 1 - size) & (__roundup_pow_of_two(size) - 1); >> } >> @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static int __alloc_and_insert_iova_range(struct iova_domain *iovad, >> struct rb_node *prev, *curr = NULL; >> unsigned long flags; >> unsigned long saved_pfn; >> - unsigned int pad_size = 0; >> + unsigned long pad_size = 0; >> >> /* Walk the tree backwards */ >> spin_lock_irqsave(&iovad->iova_rbtree_lock, flags); >> > > > . > -- Thanks! BestRegards
On 2017/3/24 10:27, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote: > > > On 2017/3/23 19:42, Robin Murphy wrote: >> On 22/03/17 06:27, Zhen Lei wrote: >>> Keep these four variables type consistent with the paramters of function >>> __alloc_and_insert_iova_range and the members of struct iova: >>> >>> 1. static int __alloc_and_insert_iova_range(struct iova_domain *iovad, >>> unsigned long size, unsigned long limit_pfn, >>> >>> 2. struct iova { >>> unsigned long pfn_hi; >>> unsigned long pfn_lo; >>> >>> In fact, limit_pfn is most likely larger than 32 bits on DMA64. >> >> FWIW if pad_size manages to overflow an int something's probably gone >> horribly wrong, but there's no harm in making it consistent with >> everything else here. However, given that patch #6 makes this irrelevant >> anyway, do we really need to bother? > > Because I'm not sure whether patch #6 can be applied or not. So if Patch #6 can be applied, I can merge this patch and patch #6 into one. > >> >> Robin. >> >>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/iommu/iova.c | 6 +++--- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iova.c b/drivers/iommu/iova.c >>> index b7268a1..8ba8b496 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/iommu/iova.c >>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iova.c >>> @@ -104,8 +104,8 @@ __cached_rbnode_delete_update(struct iova_domain *iovad, struct iova *free) >>> * Computes the padding size required, to make the start address >>> * naturally aligned on the power-of-two order of its size >>> */ >>> -static unsigned int >>> -iova_get_pad_size(unsigned int size, unsigned int limit_pfn) >>> +static unsigned long >>> +iova_get_pad_size(unsigned long size, unsigned long limit_pfn) >>> { >>> return (limit_pfn + 1 - size) & (__roundup_pow_of_two(size) - 1); >>> } >>> @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static int __alloc_and_insert_iova_range(struct iova_domain *iovad, >>> struct rb_node *prev, *curr = NULL; >>> unsigned long flags; >>> unsigned long saved_pfn; >>> - unsigned int pad_size = 0; >>> + unsigned long pad_size = 0; >>> >>> /* Walk the tree backwards */ >>> spin_lock_irqsave(&iovad->iova_rbtree_lock, flags); >>> >> >> >> . >> > -- Thanks! BestRegards
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iova.c b/drivers/iommu/iova.c index b7268a1..8ba8b496 100644 --- a/drivers/iommu/iova.c +++ b/drivers/iommu/iova.c @@ -104,8 +104,8 @@ __cached_rbnode_delete_update(struct iova_domain *iovad, struct iova *free) * Computes the padding size required, to make the start address * naturally aligned on the power-of-two order of its size */ -static unsigned int -iova_get_pad_size(unsigned int size, unsigned int limit_pfn) +static unsigned long +iova_get_pad_size(unsigned long size, unsigned long limit_pfn) { return (limit_pfn + 1 - size) & (__roundup_pow_of_two(size) - 1); } @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static int __alloc_and_insert_iova_range(struct iova_domain *iovad, struct rb_node *prev, *curr = NULL; unsigned long flags; unsigned long saved_pfn; - unsigned int pad_size = 0; + unsigned long pad_size = 0; /* Walk the tree backwards */ spin_lock_irqsave(&iovad->iova_rbtree_lock, flags);
Keep these four variables type consistent with the paramters of function __alloc_and_insert_iova_range and the members of struct iova: 1. static int __alloc_and_insert_iova_range(struct iova_domain *iovad, unsigned long size, unsigned long limit_pfn, 2. struct iova { unsigned long pfn_hi; unsigned long pfn_lo; In fact, limit_pfn is most likely larger than 32 bits on DMA64. Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> --- drivers/iommu/iova.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) -- 2.5.0