Re: [PATCH 1/4] [OMAPZOOM] DSPBRIDGE: Memory lock for DMM.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



From: "ext Kanigeri, Hari" <h-kanigeri2@xxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/4] [OMAPZOOM] DSPBRIDGE: Memory lock for DMM.
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:58:08 +0200

> Doyu-san,
> 
> > There can be multiple user applications which can do (v)-(p)-(d)
> > mapping and these processes can be killed unexpectedly. Even in such a
> > case, it would be nice if (p)-(d) mapping could be released without
> > restarting a whole iommu.
> > 
> > (v): mpu virtual address
> > (p): physicall address
> > (d): device virtual address
> 
> -- This patch is not basing on restarting the iommu when a process
> is killed unexpectedly. It will just remove the p-d translations of
> the Killed process from DSP MMU along with unlocking this buffer
> during the Bridge's resource cleanup.

What I meant by "vma->vm_ops->close(vma)" was that, if (v)-(p)-(d)
mapping can be tied just to some process context in saner manner, I
think that we don't have to call "find_task_by_vpid(pCtxtclosed->pid)"
explicitly/globally, but automatically it can be cleaned up, when a
process is exitting, although I'm not so sure right now;), just
guessing...

> 
> Thank you,
> Best regards,
> Hari
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hiroshi DOYU [mailto:Hiroshi.DOYU@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:18 AM
> > To: Kanigeri, Hari
> > Cc: Pandita, Vikram; linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Guzman Lugo, Fernando;
> > Menon, Nishanth
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] [OMAPZOOM] DSPBRIDGE: Memory lock for DMM.
> > 
> > Hi Hari,
> > 
> > From: "ext Kanigeri, Hari" <h-kanigeri2@xxxxxx>
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/4] [OMAPZOOM] DSPBRIDGE: Memory lock for DMM.
> > Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 15:01:29 +0200
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > > Hm....for this page swapping case, I think that handling this issue in
> > > > kernel may cause more complexity and this can be avoided by "mlock()"
> > > > for that buffer in userland? This looks more sipmpler?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > -- I see your point of handling the locking from user-space
> > > itself. This can be done in normal Page swapping scenarios, but in
> > > the case of abnormal termination of the user-space Process that
> > > mapped the buffers we still have an issue.
> > >
> > > This is what I think the problem might be if we move the locking to
> > user-land.
> > > 	- User process mapped and locked the buffer using mlock.
> > > 	- The Physical address mapped to DSP VA by DSPBridge.
> > > 	- The User process got terminated abnormally. I think this
> > >	will cause the Kernel to reclaim the User buffers that were
> > >	mapped.
> > > 	- Now the DSP is not aware of this cleanup and it might be
> > >	still trying to access the Mapped address, but since the Pages
> > >	are removed we will end up with MMU fault or DSP corrupting
> > >	the memory of other Processes as the reclaimed Pages might be
> > >	allocated to other Processes.
> > >
> > > By moving the locking to Kernel space, we are guaranteed that these
> > > Pages are locked even when an application that mapped the buffers is
> > > terminated. These Pages will be unlocked only during Bridge's
> > > resource cleanup of this Process after Bridge informing the DSP s/w
> > > not to access this buffer.
> > >
> > > I think if the resource cleanup is moved to bridge_release instead
> > > of bridge_open, then it might be possible to move the locking
> > > mechanism to User land. Here I am assuming that on abnormal
> > > termination of a Process, the Kernel first calls the bridge_release
> > > on behalf of the Process before reclaiming the buffers that were
> > > allocated by this Process otherwise there is a narrow Window when
> > > DSP might try to access the memory that is no longer valid.
> > 
> > There can be multiple user applications which can do (v)-(p)-(d)
> > mapping and these processes can be killed unexpectedly. Even in such a
> > case, it would be nice if (p)-(d) mapping could be released without
> > restarting a whole iommu.
> > 
> > (v): mpu virtual address
> > (p): physicall address
> > (d): device virtual address
> > 
> > So I am considering if "vma->vm_ops->close(vma)" can afford the above
> > mechanism.
> > 
> > 	Hiroshi DOYU
> > 
> > 
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Arm (vger)]     [ARM Kernel]     [ARM MSM]     [Linux Tegra]     [Linux WPAN Networking]     [Linux Wireless Networking]     [Maemo Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux