On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 3:21 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams(a)intel.com> wrote:
Recently a performance problem was reported for a process invoking a
non-trival ASL program. The method call in this case ends up
repetitively triggering a call path like:
acpi_ex_store
acpi_ex_store_object_to_node
acpi_ex_write_data_to_field
acpi_ex_insert_into_field
acpi_ex_write_with_update_rule
acpi_ex_field_datum_io
acpi_ex_access_region
acpi_ev_address_space_dispatch
acpi_ex_system_memory_space_handler
acpi_os_map_cleanup.part.14
_synchronize_rcu_expedited.constprop.89
schedule
The end result of frequent synchronize_rcu_expedited() invocation is
tiny sub-millisecond spurts of execution where the scheduler freely
migrates this apparently sleepy task. The overhead of frequent scheduler
invocation multiplies the execution time by a factor of 2-3X.
For example, performance improves from 16 minutes to 7 minutes for a
firmware update procedure across 24 devices.
Perhaps the rcu usage was intended to allow for not taking a sleeping
lock in the acpi_os_{read,write}_memory() path which ostensibly could be
called from an APEI NMI error interrupt? Neither rcu_read_lock() nor
ioremap() are interrupt safe, so add a WARN_ONCE() to validate that rcu
was not serving as a mechanism to avoid direct calls to ioremap(). Even
the original implementation had a spin_lock_irqsave(), but that is not
NMI safe.
APEI itself already has some concept of avoiding ioremap() from
interrupt context (see erst_exec_move_data()), if the new warning
triggers it means that APEI either needs more instrumentation like that
to pre-emptively fail, or more infrastructure to arrange for pre-mapping
the resources it needs in NMI context.
...
+static void __iomem *acpi_os_rw_map(acpi_physical_address
phys_addr,
+ unsigned int size, bool *did_fallback)
+{
+ void __iomem *virt_addr = NULL;
Assignment is not needed as far as I can see.
+ if (WARN_ONCE(in_interrupt(), "ioremap in interrupt
context\n"))
+ return NULL;
+
+ /* Try to use a cached mapping and fallback otherwise */
+ *did_fallback = false;
+ mutex_lock(&acpi_ioremap_lock);
+ virt_addr = acpi_map_vaddr_lookup(phys_addr, size);
+ if (virt_addr)
+ return virt_addr;
+ mutex_unlock(&acpi_ioremap_lock);
+
+ virt_addr = acpi_os_ioremap(phys_addr, size);
+ *did_fallback = true;
+
+ return virt_addr;
+}
I'm wondering if Sparse is okay with this...
+static void acpi_os_rw_unmap(void __iomem *virt_addr, bool
did_fallback)
+{
+ if (did_fallback) {
+ /* in the fallback case no lock is held */
+ iounmap(virt_addr);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ mutex_unlock(&acpi_ioremap_lock);
+}
...and this functions from locking perspective.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko