在 2021/3/26 下午1:14, Yongji Xie 写道:
+ } + map->bounce_page = page; + + /* paired with vduse_domain_map_page() */ + smp_mb();So this is suspicious. It's better to explain like, we need make sure A must be done after B.OK. I see. It's used to protect this pattern: vduse_domain_alloc_bounce_page: vduse_domain_map_page: write map->bounce_page write map->orig_phys mb() mb() read map->orig_phys read map->bounce_page Make sure there will always be a path to do bouncing.Ok.And it looks to me the iotlb_lock is sufficnet to do the synchronization here. E.g any reason that you don't take it in vduse_domain_map_bounce_page().Yes, we can. But the performance in multi-queue cases will go down if we use iotlb_lock on this critical path.And what's more, is there anyway to aovid holding the spinlock during bouncing?Looks like we can't. In the case that multiple page faults happen on the same page, we should make sure the bouncing is done before any page fault handler returns.So it looks to me all those extra complexitiy comes from the fact that the bounce_page and orig_phys are set by different places so we need to do the bouncing in two places. I wonder how much we can gain from the "lazy" boucning in page fault. The buffer mapped via dma_ops from virtio driver is expected to be accessed by the userspace soon. It looks to me we can do all those stuffs during dma_map() then things would be greatly simplified.If so, we need to allocate lots of pages from the pool reserved for atomic memory allocation requests.This should be fine, a lot of drivers tries to allocate pages in atomic context. The point is to simplify the codes to make it easy to determince the correctness so we can add optimization on top simply by benchmarking the difference.OK. I will use this way in the next version.E.g we have serveral places that accesses orig_phys: 1) map_page(), write 2) unmap_page(), write 3) page fault handler, read It's not clear to me how they were synchronized. Or if it was synchronzied implicitly (via iova allocator?), we'd better document it.Yes.Or simply use spinlock (which is the preferrable way I'd like to go). We probably don't need to worry too much about the cost of spinlock since iova allocater use it heavily.Actually iova allocator implements a per-CPU cache to optimize it. Thanks, Yongji
Right, but have a quick glance, I guess what you meant is that
usually there's no lock contention unless cpu hot-plug. This can
work but the problem is that such synchornization depends on the
internal implementation of IOVA allocator which is kind of
fragile. I still think we should do that on our own.
Thanks
_______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
