On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:27 PM Nicolas Saenz Julienne
<nsaenzjulienne@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Christoph,
> a question arouse, is there a real value to dealing with PFNs (as opposed to
> real addresses) in the core DMA code/structures? I see that in some cases it
> eases interacting with mm, but the overwhelming usage of say,
> dev->dma_pfn_offset, involves shifting it.
>
> Hi Jim,
> On Thu, 2020-06-04 at 14:01 -0400, Jim Quinlan wrote:
> > Hi Nicolas,
>
> [...]
>
> > > I understand the need for dev to be around, devm_*() is key. But also it's
> > > important to keep the functions on purpose. And if of_dma_get_range() starts
> > > setting ranges it calls, for the very least, for a function rename. Although
> > > I'd rather split the parsing and setting of ranges as mentioned earlier.
> > > That
> > > said, I get that's a more drastic move.
> >
> > I agree with you. I could do this from device.c:
> >
> > of_dma_get_num_ranges(..., &num_ranges); /* new function */
> > r = devm_kcalloc(dev, num_ranges + 1, sizeof(*r), GFP_KERNEL);
> > of_dma_get_range(np, &dma_addr, &paddr, &size, r, num_ranges);
> >
> > The problem here is that there could be four ranges, all with
> > offset=0. My current code would optimize this case out but the above
> > would have us holding useless memory and looping through the four
> > ranges on every dma <=> phys conversion only to add 0.
>
> Point taken. Ultimately it's setting the device's dma ranges in
> of_dma_get_range() that was really bothering me, so if we have to pass the
> device pointer for allocations, be it.
>
> > > Talking about drastic moves. How about getting rid of the concept of
> > > dma_pfn_offset for drivers altogether. Let them provide
> > > dma_pfn_offset_regions
> > > (even when there is only one). I feel it's conceptually nicer, as you'd be
> > > dealing only in one currency, so to speak, and you'd centralize the bus DMA
> > > ranges setter function which is always easier to maintain.
> > Do you agree that we have to somehow hang this info on the struct
> > device structure? Because in the dma2phys() and phys2dma() all you
> > have is the dev parameter. I don't see how this can be done w/o
> > involving dev.
>
> Sorry I didn't make myself clear here. What bothers me is having two functions
> setting the same device parameter trough different means, I'd be happy to get
> rid of attach_uniform_dma_pfn_offset(), and always use the same function to set
> a device's bus dma regions. Something the likes of this comes to mind:
>
> dma_attach_pfn_offset_region(struct device *dev, struct dma_pfn_offset_regions *r)
>
> We could maybe use some helper macros for the linear case. But that's the gist
> of it.
>
> Also, it goes hand in hand with the comment below. Why having a special case
> for non sparse DMA offsets in struct dma_pfn_offset_regions? The way I see it,
> in this case, code simplicity is more interesting than a small optimization.
I've removed the special case and also need for 'dev' in
of_dma_get_range(). v4 is comming...
>
> > > I'd go as far as not creating a special case for uniform offsets. Let just
> > > set
> > > cpu_end and dma_end to -1 so we always get a match. It's slightly more
> > > compute
> > > heavy, but I don't think it's worth the optimization.
> > Well, there are two subcases here. One where we do know the bounds
> > and one where we do not. I suppose for the latter I could have the
> > drivers calling it with begin=0 and end=~(dma_addr_t)0. Let me give
> > this some thought...
> >
> > > Just my two cents :)
> >
> > Worth much more than $0.02 IMO :-)
>
> BTW, would you consider renaming the DMA offset struct to something simpler
> like, struct bus_dma_region? It complements 'dev->bus_dma_limit' better IMO.
Will do
Thanks,
Jim
>
> > BTW, I tried putting the "if (dev->dma_pfn_offset_map)" clause inside
> > the inline functions but the problem is that it slows the fastpath;
> > consider the following code from dma-direct.h
> >
> > if (dev->dma_pfn_offset_map) {
> > unsigned long dma_pfn_offset =
> dma_pfn_offset_from_phys_addr(dev, paddr);
> >
> > dev_addr -= ((dma_addr_t)dma_pfn_offset << PAGE_SHIFT);
> > }
> > return dev_addr;
> >
> > becomes
> >
> > unsigned long dma_pfn_offset = dma_pfn_offset_from_phys_addr(dev,
> paddr);
> >
> > dev_addr -= ((dma_addr_t)dma_pfn_offset << PAGE_SHIFT);
> > return dev_addr;
> >
> > So those configurations that have no dma_pfn_offsets are doing an
> > unnecessary shift and add.
>
> Fair enough. Still not a huge difference, but I see the value being the most
> common case.
>
> Regards,
> Nicolas
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
