On 10/23/23 11:44 AM, Divin Raj wrote:
Hello all, I am reaching out with reference to the patch discussed here: Enhanced virtio rpmsg bus driver buffer allocation. <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAH2Cfb-sv3SAL8bcczC-Dc3_r58MYZCS7s7zGtn1Qfo3mmBqVg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/> I've been keenly following the developments around enhancing buffer allocation strategies, especially those focused on dynamic buffer sizing and the considerations for systems under varying memory constraints.This work is highly relevant to several projects I am involved in, and I am quite interested in its progression. May I kindly request an update on the current phase of these initiatives? Additionally, I am eager to know if there would be an opportunity for me to contribute to enhancing the patch, possibly by working on improvements or assisting in verification processes. Furthermore, if there are any condensed resources, summaries, or specific threads that encapsulate recent advancements or discussions on this topic, I would be grateful to receive directions to them. I appreciate everyone's dedicated efforts and invaluable contributions to this area of development. Looking forward to the updates. Regards Divin
Hello Linux Community, In one of our internal projects, we encountered a challenge with RPMSG buffer allocation. Our goal is to optimize memory allocation for an out-of-tree RPMSG Ethernet device driver using virtio. This is to ensure support for packet sizes matching the standard MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) size of 1500 bytes. To mitigate this issue, There are few possible solutions: 1. Configure buffer size and number through Kconfig. 2. Permit the firmware creator to determine the most suitable value from the resource table. 3. Enable independent configurations on both ends. This approach would support both dynamic and fixed buffer configurations using a generic allocator. Reference: [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/1548949280-31794-4-git-send-email-xiaoxiang@xxxxxxxxxx/ [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20190701061353.GE1263@builder/ Draft Design Overview: Based on the reference patch and the discussions, we have outlined the following key points for the belw design: 1. Assure compatibility, enabling both Linux and the remote system to interchangeably transmit and receive messages, irrespective of size. 2. For systems with constrained shared memory: Systems with small, shared memory, we need to deal with a limited/optimized memory chunk. To avoid memory fragmentation, the allocator should have a pre-reserved buffer pool 3. The implementation should ensure that the remote side does not receive messages based on its allocation parameters. do you think it could make sense? High level view: +------------------+ +------------------+ | | | | | Linux | | Remote | | | | | | +----------+ | +-----------------+ | +----------+ | | | RPMSG | | <---> | Buffer Allocator|<--->| | RPMSG | | | +----------+ | | (Dynamic/Static)| | +----------+ | | | +-----------------+ | | +------------------+ +------------------+ Detailed view: +-------------------------+ | Message Creation | | (Both Linux/Remote) | +------------+------------+ | v +-------------------------+ | Determine the allocation| | strategy | +------------+------------+ | +--------------+--------------+ | | +-------------------------------+ +-------------------------------+ | Dynamic allocation | | Static allocation | | (Buffer allocator allocates | | (Pre-reserved memory | | memory space as needed, | | space) | | based on the current | | | | message requirement ) | | | +-------------------------------+ +-------------------------------+ We would greatly appreciate any feedback, suggestions, or improvements you could provide. Thank you for your time and consideration. Regards Divin IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
