On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 15:22:39 +0200, Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 11:27:50 +0800 > > > The purpose of this patch is to allow driver pass the own dma_ops to > > xsk. > > > > This is to cope with the scene of virtio-net. If virtio does not have > > VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM, then virtio cannot use DMA API. In this case, > > XSK cannot use DMA API directly to achieve DMA address. Based on this > > scene, we must let XSK support driver to use the driver's dma_ops. > > > > On the other hand, the implementation of XSK as a highlevel code > > should put the underlying operation of DMA to the driver layer. > > The driver layer determines the implementation of the final DMA. XSK > > should not make such assumptions. Everything will be simplified if DMA > > is done at the driver level. > > > > More is here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/virtualization/1681265026.6082013-1-xuanzhuo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Signed-off-by: Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > [...] > > > struct xsk_buff_pool { > > /* Members only used in the control path first. */ > > struct device *dev; > > @@ -85,6 +102,7 @@ struct xsk_buff_pool { > > * sockets share a single cq when the same netdev and queue id is shared. > > */ > > spinlock_t cq_lock; > > + struct xsk_dma_ops dma_ops; > > Why full struct, not a const pointer? You'll have indirect calls either > way, copying the full struct won't reclaim you much performance. > > > struct xdp_buff_xsk *free_heads[]; > > }; > > > > [...] > > > @@ -424,18 +426,29 @@ int xp_dma_map(struct xsk_buff_pool *pool, struct device *dev, > > return 0; > > } > > > > + if (!dma_ops) { > > + pool->dma_ops.map_page = dma_map_page_attrs; > > + pool->dma_ops.mapping_error = dma_mapping_error; > > + pool->dma_ops.need_sync = dma_need_sync; > > + pool->dma_ops.sync_single_range_for_device = dma_sync_single_range_for_device; > > + pool->dma_ops.sync_single_range_for_cpu = dma_sync_single_range_for_cpu; > > + dma_ops = &pool->dma_ops; > > + } else { > > + pool->dma_ops = *dma_ops; > > + } > > If DMA syncs are not needed on your x86_64 DMA-coherent system, it > doesn't mean we all don't need it. Instead of filling pointers with > "default" callbacks, you could instead avoid indirect calls at all when > no custom DMA ops are specified. Pls see how for example Christoph did > that for direct DMA. It would cost only one if-else for case without > custom DMA ops here instead of an indirect call each time. > > (I *could* suggest using INDIRECT_CALL_WRAPPER(), but I won't, since > it's more expensive than direct checking and I feel like it's more > appropriate to check directly here) OK, I will fix it in next version. Thanks. > > > + > > dma_map = xp_create_dma_map(dev, pool->netdev, nr_pages, pool->umem); > > if (!dma_map) > > return -ENOMEM; > [...] > > Thanks, > Olek _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
