| Message ID | 20190523162209.9543-6-mimu@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | s390: virtio: support protected virtualization | expand |
On Thu, 23 May 2019 18:22:06 +0200 Michael Mueller <mimu@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > From: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> > > The flag AIRQ_IV_CACHELINE was recently added to airq_iv_create(). Let > us use it! We actually wanted the vector to span a cacheline all along. > > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> > --- > drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c > index f995798bb025..1da7430f94c8 100644 > --- a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c > +++ b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c > @@ -216,7 +216,8 @@ static struct airq_info *new_airq_info(void) > if (!info) > return NULL; > rwlock_init(&info->lock); > - info->aiv = airq_iv_create(VIRTIO_IV_BITS, AIRQ_IV_ALLOC | AIRQ_IV_PTR); > + info->aiv = airq_iv_create(VIRTIO_IV_BITS, AIRQ_IV_ALLOC | AIRQ_IV_PTR > + | AIRQ_IV_CACHELINE); > if (!info->aiv) { > kfree(info); > return NULL; This patch looks to be independent of the previous patches?
On Mon, 27 May 2019 12:55:31 +0200 Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, 23 May 2019 18:22:06 +0200 > Michael Mueller <mimu@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > From: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> > > > > The flag AIRQ_IV_CACHELINE was recently added to airq_iv_create(). Let > > us use it! We actually wanted the vector to span a cacheline all along. > > > > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> > > --- > > drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c > > index f995798bb025..1da7430f94c8 100644 > > --- a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c > > +++ b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c > > @@ -216,7 +216,8 @@ static struct airq_info *new_airq_info(void) > > if (!info) > > return NULL; > > rwlock_init(&info->lock); > > - info->aiv = airq_iv_create(VIRTIO_IV_BITS, AIRQ_IV_ALLOC | AIRQ_IV_PTR); > > + info->aiv = airq_iv_create(VIRTIO_IV_BITS, AIRQ_IV_ALLOC | AIRQ_IV_PTR > > + | AIRQ_IV_CACHELINE); > > if (!info->aiv) { > > kfree(info); > > return NULL; > > This patch looks to be independent of the previous patches? > It ain't a clear cut. It could have been a part of the series that introduced AIRQ_IV_CACHELINE. OTOH I'm not sure it buys us anything without patch 4. (I'm no expert on slab allocator so I can't tell much about the probability of getting chacheline aligned memory if we ask for a chacheline sized chunk of memory from kmalloc()). Regards, Halil
diff --git a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c index f995798bb025..1da7430f94c8 100644 --- a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c +++ b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c @@ -216,7 +216,8 @@ static struct airq_info *new_airq_info(void) if (!info) return NULL; rwlock_init(&info->lock); - info->aiv = airq_iv_create(VIRTIO_IV_BITS, AIRQ_IV_ALLOC | AIRQ_IV_PTR); + info->aiv = airq_iv_create(VIRTIO_IV_BITS, AIRQ_IV_ALLOC | AIRQ_IV_PTR + | AIRQ_IV_CACHELINE); if (!info->aiv) { kfree(info); return NULL;