Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 11:27:41 +0000 > Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> What muddies the waters a bit is that the opposite combination >> sync_for_cpu(DMA_TO_DEVICE) really *should* always be a no-op, and I for >> one have already made the case for eliding that in code elsewhere, but >> it doesn't necessarily hold for the inverse here, hence why I'm not sure >> there even is a robust common solution for peeking at a live >> DMA_FROM_DEVICE buffer. > > In https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/3/24/739 I also argued, that a robust > common solution for a peeking at a live DMA_FROM_DEVICE buffer is > probably not possible, at least not with the current programming model > as described by Documentation/core-api/dma-api.rst. > > Namely AFAIU the programming model is based on exclusive ownership: the > buffer is either owned by the device, which means CPU(s) are not allowed > to *access* it, or it is owned by the CPU(s), and the device is not > allowed to *access* it. Do we agree on this? > > Considering what Linus said here https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/3/24/775 > I understand that: if the idea that dma_sync_*_for_{cpu,device} always > transfers ownership to the cpu and device respectively is abandoned, > and we re-define ownership in a sense that only the owner may write, > but non-owner is allowed to read, then it may be possible to make the > scenario under discussion work. > > The scenario in pseudo code: > > /* when invoked device might be doing DMA into buf */ > rx_buf_complete(buf) > { > prepare_peek(buf, DMA_FROM_DEVICE); > if (!is_ready(buf)) { > /*let device gain the buffer again*/ > peek_done_not_ready(buf, DMA_FROM_DEVICE); > return false; > } > peek_done_ready(buf, DMA_FROM_DEVICE); > process_buff(buf, DMA_FROM_DEVICE); is > } > > IMHO it is pretty obvious, that prepare_peek() has to update the > cpu copy of the data *without* transferring ownership to the CPU. Since > the owner is still the device, it is legit for the device to keep > modifying the buffer via DMA. In case of the swiotlb, we would copy the > content of the bounce buffer to the orig buffer possibly after > invalidating > caches, and for non-swiotlb we would do invalidate caches. So > prepare_peek() could be actually something like, > dma_sync_single_for_cpu(buf, DMA_FROM_DEVICE, > DMA_ATTR_NO_OWNERSHIP_TRANSFER) > which would most end up being functionally the same, as without the > flag, since my guess is that the ownership is only tracked in our > heads. Well we also need to ensure that the CPU caches are properly invalidated either in prepare_peek() or peek_done_not_ready(), so that the data is not cached between subsequent peeks. This could translate to either turning prepare_peek() into dma_sync_single_for_cpu(buf, DMA_FROM_DEVICE, DMA_ATTR_NO_OWNERSHIP_TRANSFER_BUT_INVALIDATE_CACHES), or it could turn peek_done_not_ready() into something that just invalidates the cache. I was also toying with the idea of having a copy-based peek helper like: u32 data = dma_peek_word(buf, offset) which leaves the ownership as-is, but copies out a single word from the buffer at the given offset (from the bounce buffer or real buffer as appropriate) without messing with the ownership notion. The trouble with this idea is that ath9k reads two different words that are 44 bytes from each other, so it would have to do two such calls, which would be racy :( -Toke
