On Tue, 20 May 2025 08:07:19 -0600, alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> Before this patch: >> funcgraph_entry: # 33813.703 us | vfio_pin_map_dma(); >> >> After this patch: >> funcgraph_entry: # 15635.055 us | vfio_pin_map_dma(); > >It looks like we're using the same numbers since the initial >implementation, have these results changed? Before the release of each version of the patch, I have conducted performance test, and the results have consistently been in close proximity to this value. Consequently, I decided there was no need to update. I will include the latest test results in the next version. >> Signed-off-by: Li Zhe <lizhe.67@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx> > >Appreciate the credit, this should probably be Co-developed-by: though. >In general a sign-off is something that needs to be explicitly given. Thank you for the reminder. I will correct this error in the next version. >> + /* >> + * Note: The current nr_pages does not achieve the optimal >> + * performance in scenarios where folio_nr_pages() exceeds >> + * batch->capacity. It is anticipated that future enhancements >> + * will address this limitation. >> + */ >> + nr_pages = min((long)batch->size, folio_nr_pages(folio) - >> + folio_page_idx(folio, batch->pages[batch->offset])); > >We should use min_t() here, otherwise it looks good to me. Thank you once again for your review! I will correct this error in the next version. By the way, using min_t() also resolved the build error reported by the kernel test robot[1]. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/202505210701.WY7sKXwU-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ Thanks, Zhe
