From: wangyunjian <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
To: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"david.marchand@redhat.com" <david.marchand@redhat.com>
Cc: "Lilijun (Jerry)" <jerry.lilijun@huawei.com>,
xudingke <xudingke@huawei.com>,
"stable@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] eal/linux: do not create user mem map repeatedly when it exists
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 13:16:44 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <34EFBCA9F01B0748BEB6B629CE643AE60D0F695F@dggemm513-mbx.china.huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a75edde1-a30c-71d1-5191-6c37cad23779@intel.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Burakov, Anatoly [mailto:anatoly.burakov@intel.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 5:24 PM
> To: wangyunjian <wangyunjian@huawei.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> david.marchand@redhat.com
> Cc: Lilijun (Jerry) <jerry.lilijun@huawei.com>; xudingke
> <xudingke@huawei.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] eal/linux: do not create user mem map
> repeatedly when it exists
>
> On 25-Jul-20 10:59 AM, wangyunjian wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Burakov, Anatoly [mailto:anatoly.burakov@intel.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2020 9:25 PM
> >> To: wangyunjian <wangyunjian@huawei.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> >> david.marchand@redhat.com
> >> Cc: Lilijun (Jerry) <jerry.lilijun@huawei.com>; xudingke
> >> <xudingke@huawei.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] eal/linux: do not create user mem
> >> map repeatedly when it exists
> >>
> >> On 23-Jul-20 3:48 PM, wangyunjian wrote:
> >>> From: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
> >>>
> >>> Currently, we will create new user mem map entry for the same memory
> >>> segment, but in fact it has already been added to the user mem maps.
> >>> It's not necessary to create it twice.
> >>>
> >>> To resolve the issue, add support to remove the same entry in the
> >>> function compact_user_maps().
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: 0cbce3a167f1 ("vfio: skip DMA map failure if already mapped")
> >>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> v2:
> >>> * Remove the same entry in the function compact_user_maps()
> >>> ---
> >>> lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c | 5 +++++
> >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
> >>> b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c index abb12a354..df99307b7 100644
> >>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
> >>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
> >>> @@ -167,6 +167,10 @@ adjust_map(struct user_mem_map *src, struct
> >> user_mem_map *end,
> >>> static int
> >>> merge_map(struct user_mem_map *left, struct user_mem_map
> *right)
> >>> {
> >>> + /* merge the same maps into one */
> >>> + if (memcmp(left, right, sizeof(struct user_mem_map)) == 0)
> >>> + goto out;
> >>> +
> >>
> >> merge_map looks for adjacent maps only, but does not handle maps that
> >> are wholly contained within one another ("the same map" also matches
> >> this definition). wouldn't it be better to check for that instead of
> >> *just* handling identical maps?
> >
> > What about using the initial implementation?
> > We don't create new user mem map entry for the same memory segment.
>
> I don't like this implementation because it relies on particulars of how VFIO
> mapping work without explicitly specifying them. I.e. it's prone to breaking
> when changing code. That's not even mentioning that we have no guarantees
> on kernel behavior in that particular case being identical on all supported
> platforms.
>
> I would honestly prefer an explicit compaction over implicit one.
What about this implementation?
diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
index e07979936..8dcb04cd9 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
@@ -179,6 +179,19 @@ merge_map(struct user_mem_map *left, struct user_mem_map *right)
return 1;
}
+/* try merging two same maps into one, return 1 if succeeded */
+static int
+merge_same_map(struct user_mem_map *left, struct user_mem_map *right)
+{
+ if (memcmp(left, right, sizeof(struct user_mem_map)) != 0) {
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ memset(right, 0, sizeof(*right));
+
+ return 1;
+}
+
static struct user_mem_map *
find_user_mem_map(struct user_mem_maps *user_mem_maps, uint64_t addr,
uint64_t iova, uint64_t len)
@@ -232,7 +245,7 @@ compact_user_maps(struct user_mem_maps *user_mem_maps)
if (is_null_map(l) || is_null_map(r))
continue;
- if (merge_map(l, r))
+ if (merge_map(l, r) || merge_same_map(l, r))
n_merged++;
}
Thanks,
Yunjian
>
> >
> > @@ -1828,6 +1828,13 @@ container_dma_map(struct vfio_config
> *vfio_cfg, uint64_t vaddr, uint64_t iova,
> > ret = -1;
> > goto out;
> > }
> > +
> > + /* we don't need create new user mem map entry
> > + * for the same memory segment.
> > + */
> > + if (errno == EBUSY || errno == EEXIST)
> > + goto out;
> > +
> > /* create new user mem map entry */
> > new_map =
> &user_mem_maps->maps[user_mem_maps->n_maps++];
> > new_map->addr = vaddr;
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yunjian
> >>
> >>> if (left->addr + left->len != right->addr)
> >>> return 0;
> >>> if (left->iova + left->len != right->iova) @@ -174,6 +178,7 @@
> >>> merge_map(struct user_mem_map *left, struct
> >> user_mem_map *right)
> >>>
> >>> left->len += right->len;
> >>>
> >>> +out:
> >>> memset(right, 0, sizeof(*right));
> >>>
> >>> return 1;
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thanks,
> >> Anatoly
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Anatoly
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-30 13:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-16 13:38 [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 1/1] " wangyunjian
2020-07-17 14:19 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Burakov, Anatoly
2020-07-17 14:23 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-07-20 2:00 ` wangyunjian
2020-07-20 11:46 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-07-22 12:47 ` wangyunjian
2020-07-23 14:48 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " wangyunjian
2020-07-24 13:25 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-07-25 9:59 ` wangyunjian
2020-07-27 9:24 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-07-30 13:16 ` wangyunjian [this message]
2020-07-31 11:55 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-08-05 12:58 ` wangyunjian
2020-09-17 11:33 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-09-17 11:35 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-10-15 12:46 ` wangyunjian
2020-10-15 12:54 ` David Marchand
2020-10-16 9:48 ` wangyunjian
2020-10-16 9:28 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] eal: fix " wangyunjian
2020-10-20 14:09 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-11-15 14:23 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-11-22 18:20 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-11-23 7:40 ` wangyunjian
2020-11-27 12:54 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-12-07 11:08 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] " wangyunjian
2021-03-25 13:38 ` wangyunjian
2021-03-25 14:30 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-03-25 16:45 ` Kevin Traynor
2021-04-10 9:37 ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] " wangyunjian
2021-04-19 11:47 ` Thomas Monjalon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=34EFBCA9F01B0748BEB6B629CE643AE60D0F695F@dggemm513-mbx.china.huawei.com \
--to=wangyunjian@huawei.com \
--cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jerry.lilijun@huawei.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
--cc=xudingke@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).