On Thu, 23 Jun 2022, Vincent MAILHOL wrote: > On Wed. 22 Jun 2022 at 21:24, Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 07:34:57PM +0900, Vincent MAILHOL wrote: > > > On Wed. 22 Jun 2022 at 18:44, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 09:22:12AM +0000, David Laight wrote: > > > > > From: Vincent MAILHOL > > > > > > Sent: 21 June 2022 16:56 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed. 22 Jun 2022 at 00:13, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 11:59:16PM +0900, Vincent MAILHOL wrote: > > > > > > > > I (probably wrongly) assumed that urb::transfer_buffer_length was the > > > > > > > > allocated length and urb::actual_length was what was actually being > > > > > > > > transferred. Right now, I am just confused. Seems that I need to study > > > > > > > > a bit more and understand the real purpose of > > > > > > > > urb::transfer_buffer_length because I still fail to understand in > > > > > > > > which situation this can be different from the allocated length. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > urb->transfer_buffer_length is the amount of data that the driver wants > > > > > > > to send or expects to receive. urb->actual_length is the amount of data > > > > > > > that was actually sent or actually received. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Neither of these values has to be the same as the size of the buffer -- > > > > > > > but they better not be bigger! > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. Now things are a bit clearer. > > > > > > I guess that for the outcoming URB what I proposed made no sense. For > > > > > > incoming URB, I guess that most of the drivers want to set > > > > > > urb::transfer_buffer once for all with the allocated size and never > > > > > > touch it again. > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe the patch only makes sense of the incoming URB. Would it make > > > > > > sense to keep it but with an additional check to trigger a dmesg > > > > > > warning if this is used on an outcoming endpoint and with additional > > > > > > comment that the URB_FREE_COHERENT requires urb::transfer_buffer to be > > > > > > the allocated size? > > > > > > > > > > IIRC urb are pretty big. > > > > > > > > What exactly do you mean by "pretty big" here? And what is wrong with > > > > that, I have never seen any issues with the current size of that > > > > structure in any benchmark or performance results. All USB bottlenecks > > > > that I know of are either in the hardware layer, or in the protocol > > > > layer itself (i.e. usb-storage protocol). > > > > > > > > > You'd be unlucky if adding an extra field to hold the allocated > > > > > size would ever need more memory. > > > > > So it might just be worth saving the allocated size. > > > > > > > > Maybe, yes, then we could transition to allocating the urb and buffer at > > > > the same time like we do partially for iso streams in an urb. But that > > > > still might be overkill for just this one driver. > > > > > > Well, I wouldn't have proposed the patch if it only applied to a > > > single driver. If we add a urb::allocated_transfer_size as suggested > > > by David, I believe that the majority of the drivers using DMA memory > > > will be able to rely on that URB_FREE_COHERENT flag for the garbage > > > collection. > > > > > > The caveat, as you pointed before, is that the developper still needs > > > to be aware of the limitations of DMA and that it should not be freed > > > in an IRQ context. e.g. no call to usb_kill_anchored_urbs() or other > > > functions that would lead to urb_destroy(). > > > > > > > I'm curious as to why > > > > a slow and tiny protocol like CAN needs to use usb_alloc_coherent() for > > > > its buffers in the first place. > > > > > > The CAN protocol, in its latest revision, allows for transfer speed up > > > to ~5Mbits. For low performance CPUs, this starts to be a significant > > > load. Also, the CAN PDU being small (0 to 64 bytes), many small > > > transfers occur. > > > > And is the memcpy the actual issue here? Even tiny cpus can do large > > and small memcopy very very very fast. > > > > > Unfortunately I did not do any benchmark myself so I won't be able to > > > back my explanation with numbers. > > > > That might be the simplest solution here :) > > Yes, this would give a clear answer whether or not DMA was needed in > the first place. But I do not own that gs_usb device to do the > benchmark myself (and to be honest I do not have time to dedicate for > this at the moment, maybe I will do it later on some other devices). > > Has anyone from the linux-can mailing list ever done such a benchmark? > Else, is there anyone who would like to volunteer? I have access to a couple of gs_usb devices but I am afraid I have no experience performing this sort of benchmarking and also would have to squeeze it in as a weekend project or something similar. That said, if someone's willing to help step me through it, I can see if it's feasible for me to do. That said, the gs_usb driver is mostly following along a very well established pattern for writing USB CAN devices. Both the pattern followed that created the memory leak, as well as the pattern I followed to resolve the memory leak, were also seen in the esd2 USB CAN driver as well, and likely others are following suit. So, I don't know that we'd need to keep it specific to gs_usb to gain good information here. Best, Rhett
