From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shreyansh Jain Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] common/dpaax: add library for PA VA translation table Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:32:24 +0530 Message-ID: <2c377b57-c418-5c03-a23d-5da91ef898d0@nxp.com> References: <20180925125423.7505-1-shreyansh.jain@nxp.com> <20180925125423.7505-4-shreyansh.jain@nxp.com> <894130a9-017c-348d-31f8-c4c23f517f25@nxp.com> <2d2e9008-fb5b-3ecd-2d2c-e86250f5d363@nxp.com> <5e153c76-6eaa-e6a5-28ed-7cec191d4581@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: ferruh.yigit@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org To: "Burakov, Anatoly" Return-path: Received: from EUR02-AM5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr00046.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.0.46]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3D661B1F5 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 12:02:55 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <5e153c76-6eaa-e6a5-28ed-7cec191d4581@intel.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thursday 11 October 2018 02:33 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > On 09-Oct-18 11:45 AM, Shreyansh Jain wrote: >> On Tuesday 25 September 2018 07:09 PM, Shreyansh Jain wrote: >>> Hello Anatoly, >>> >>> On Tuesday 25 September 2018 06:58 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: >>>> On 25-Sep-18 1:54 PM, Shreyansh Jain wrote: >>>>> A common library, valid for dpaaX drivers, which is used to maintain >>>>> a local copy of PA->VA translations. >>>>> >>>>> In case of physical addressing mode (one of the option for FSLMC, and >>>>> only option for DPAA bus), the addresses of descriptors Rx'd are >>>>> physical. These need to be converted into equivalent VA for rte_mbuf >>>>> and other similar calls. >>>>> >>>>> Using the rte_mem_virt2iova or rte_mem_virt2phy is expensive. This >>>>> library is an attempt to reduce the overall cost associated with >>>>> this translation. >>>>> >>>>> A small table is maintained, containing continuous entries >>>>> representing a continguous physical range. Each of these entries >>>>> stores the equivalent VA, which is fed during mempool creation, or >>>>> memory allocation/deallocation callbacks. >>>>> >> >> [...] >> >>> >>>> >>>> Also, a couple of nitpicks below. >>>> >>>>>   cosnfig/common_base                            |   5 + >>>>>   config/common_linuxapp                        |   5 + >>>>>   drivers/common/Makefile                       |   4 + >>>>>   drivers/common/dpaax/Makefile                 |  31 ++ >>>>>   drivers/common/dpaax/dpaax_iova_table.c       | 509 >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>   drivers/common/dpaax/dpaax_iova_table.h       | 104 ++++ >>>>>   drivers/common/dpaax/dpaax_logs.h             |  39 ++ >>>>>   drivers/common/dpaax/meson.build              |  12 + >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> +    DPAAX_DEBUG("Add: Found slot at (%"PRIu64")[(%zu)] for >>>>> vaddr:(%p)," >>>>> +            " phy(%"PRIu64"), len(%zu)", entry[i].start, e_offset, >>>>> +            vaddr, paddr, length); >>>>> +    return 0; >>>>> +} >>>>> + >>>>> +int >>>>> +dpaax_iova_table_del(phys_addr_t paddr, size_t len __rte_unused) >>>> >>>> len is not unused. >>> >>> I will fix this. >>> Actually, this function itself is useless - more for symmetry reason. >>> Callers would be either simply updating the table, or ignoring it >>> completely. But, yes, this is indeed wrong that I set that unused. >>> >> >> Actually, I was wrong in my first reply. In case of >> dpaax_iova_table_del(), len is indeed redundant. This is because the >> mapping is for a complete page (min of 2MB size), even if the request >> is for lesser length. So, removal of a single entry (of fixed size) >> would be done. >> >> In fact, while on this, I think deleting a PA->VA entry itself is >> incorrect (not just useless). A single entry (~2MB equivalent) can >> represent multiple users (working on a rte_malloc'd area, for >> example). So, effectively, its always an update - not an add or del. > > I'm not sure what you mean here. If you got a mem event about memory > area being freed, it's guaranteed to *not* have any users - neither > malloc, nor any other memory. And len is always page-aligned. ok. Maybe I am getting this wrong, but consider this: 1) hugepage size=2MB 2) a = malloc(1M) this will pin an entry in table for a block starting at VA=(a) and PA=(a'). Each entry is of 2MB length - that means, even if someone were to access a+1048577 for an equivalent PA, they would get it (though, that is a incorrect access). 3) b = malloc(1M) this *might* lead to a case where same 2MB page is used and VA=(b==(a+1MB)). Being hugepage backed, PA=(b=PA(a)+1M). = After b, the PA-VA table has a single entry of 2MB, representing two mallocs. It can be used for translation for any thread requesting PAs of a or b. 4) Free(a) - this would attempt to remove one 2MB entry from PA-VA table. But, 'b' is already valid. Access to get_pa(VA(b)) should return me the PA(b). - 'len' is not even used as the entry in PA-VA table is of a fixed size. In the above, (3) is an assumption I am making based on my understanding how mem allocator is working. Is that wrong? Basically, this is a restriction of this table - it has a min chunk of 2MB - even for 1G hugepages - and hence, it is not possible to honor deletes. I know this is convoluted logic - but, this keeps it simple and use-able without much performance impact. [...]