lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 05/15] habanalabs: add command buffer module
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 09:55:23AM +0200, Oded Gabbay wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 8:49 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:47:03PM +0200, Oded Gabbay wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 2:28 PM Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 02:00:47AM +0200, Oded Gabbay wrote:
> > > > > This patch adds the CB module, which allows the user to create and
> > > > > destroy CBs and to map them to the user's process address-space.
> > > >
> > > > Can you please spell "command buffer" at least first time it's mentioned?
> > > fixed
> > > >
> > > > > A command buffer is a memory blocks that reside in DMA-able address-space
> > > > > and is physically contiguous so it can be accessed by the device without
> > > > > MMU translation. The command buffer memory is allocated using the
> > > > > coherent DMA API.
> > > > >
> > > > > When creating a new CB, the IOCTL returns a handle of it, and the
> > > > > user-space process needs to use that handle to mmap the buffer to get a VA
> > > > > in the user's address-space.
> > > > >
> > > > > Before destroying (freeing) a CB, the user must unmap the CB's VA using the
> > > > > CB handle.
> > > > >
> > > > > Each CB has a reference counter, which tracks its usage in command
> > > > > submissions and also its mmaps (only a single mmap is allowed).
> > > > >
> > > > > The driver maintains a pool of pre-allocated CBs in order to reduce
> > > > > latency during command submissions. In case the pool is empty, the driver
> > > > > will go to the slow-path of allocating a new CB, i.e. calling
> > > > > dma_alloc_coherent.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Oded Gabbay <oded.gabbay@gmail.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/misc/habanalabs/Makefile | 3 +-
> > > > > drivers/misc/habanalabs/command_buffer.c | 414 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > drivers/misc/habanalabs/device.c | 43 ++-
> > > > > drivers/misc/habanalabs/goya/goya.c | 28 ++
> > > > > drivers/misc/habanalabs/habanalabs.h | 95 ++++-
> > > > > drivers/misc/habanalabs/habanalabs_drv.c | 2 +
> > > > > drivers/misc/habanalabs/habanalabs_ioctl.c | 102 +++++
> > > > > include/uapi/misc/habanalabs.h | 62 +++
> > > > > 8 files changed, 746 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > create mode 100644 drivers/misc/habanalabs/command_buffer.c
> > > > > create mode 100644 drivers/misc/habanalabs/habanalabs_ioctl.c
> > > > > create mode 100644 include/uapi/misc/habanalabs.h
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > > > > +int hl_cb_create(struct hl_device *hdev, struct hl_cb_mgr *mgr,
> > > > > + u32 cb_size, u64 *handle, int ctx_id)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct hl_cb *cb;
> > > > > + bool alloc_new_cb = true;
> > > > > + int rc;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (hdev->disabled) {
> > > > > + dev_warn_ratelimited(hdev->dev,
> > > > > + "Device is disabled !!! Can't create new CBs\n");
> > > > > + rc = -EBUSY;
> > > > > + goto out_err;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* Minimum allocation must be PAGE SIZE */
> > > > > + if (cb_size < PAGE_SIZE)
> > > > > + cb_size = PAGE_SIZE;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (ctx_id == HL_KERNEL_ASID_ID &&
> > > > > + cb_size <= hdev->asic_prop.cb_pool_cb_size) {
> > > > > +
> > > > > + spin_lock(&hdev->cb_pool_lock);
> > > > > + if (!list_empty(&hdev->cb_pool)) {
> > > > > + cb = list_first_entry(&hdev->cb_pool, typeof(*cb),
> > > > > + pool_list);
> > > > > + list_del(&cb->pool_list);
> > > > > + spin_unlock(&hdev->cb_pool_lock);
> > > > > + alloc_new_cb = false;
> > > > > + } else {
> > > > > + spin_unlock(&hdev->cb_pool_lock);
> > > > > + dev_warn_once(hdev->dev, "CB pool is empty\n");
> > > >
> > > > Isn't it going to be a false alarm when you allocate the cb for the first
> > > > time?
> > > Why ?
> > > The cb_pool list holds a list of available CBs. See hl_cb_pool_init()
> > > - it adds newly allocated CBs to this pool list.
> > >
> > > if (!list_empty(&hdev->cb_pool)) { - this checks whether the
> > > pool is not empty so we can take an available CB from it. If the list
> > > is empty (hence the pool is empty), we print the warning.
> >
> > Sorry if it's too much nitpicking, but why the allocation of the first cb
> > should be a warning? There's nothing wrong there... Maybe dev_dbg()
> > instead?
> Yeah, that's a fair point. The issue is I would like to know if we
> reach to this state and dev_dbg isn't usually enabled.
> Still, I get what you are saying and I'll change this to dev_dbg.
>
> >
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (alloc_new_cb) {
> > > > > + cb = hl_cb_alloc(hdev, cb_size, ctx_id);
> > > > > + if (!cb) {
> > > > > + rc = -ENOMEM;
> > > > > + goto out_err;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + cb->hdev = hdev;
> > > > > + cb->ctx_id = ctx_id;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + spin_lock(&mgr->cb_lock);
> > > > > + rc = idr_alloc(&mgr->cb_handles, cb, 1, 0, GFP_ATOMIC);
> > > >
> > > > It seems the ID will remain dangling if the cb is reused.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what you mean by this comment. Reused by whom ? in how
> > > fashion it is reused ?
> >
> > Sorry if I didn't explain it more clearly.
> > If the case the cb is reused, you anyway call idr_alloc() and overwrite the
> > previous value of cb->id and it never gets idr_remove()'ed
> I don't think that is the case.
> Please look at hl_cb_destroy(). There, we do the idr_remove and then
> we kref_put the CB. In it's release code path, we check if this is a
> CB from pool, and if so, we return it to the pool. When it will be
> alloc'ed again, it will get a new id.
> The problem in this patch is that hl_cb_destroy is not used yet for
> CB's from the pool because the command submission code which use that
> comes at a later patch, so indeed it might be confusing. But if you
> will take a look at the entire code and check when hl_cb_destroy is
> called I think you will agree with me.
> But if you still think otherwise, please tell me. I might be missing
> something here.

Right, hl_cb_create and hl_cb_destroy are indeed paired. Frankly, I was too
lazy to thoroughly check hl_device_release() case when userspace didn't
free all the cb's, but, apparently it also does the required cleanup.

> Thanks,
> Oded
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > + spin_unlock(&mgr->cb_lock);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (rc < 0) {
> > > > > + dev_err(hdev->dev, "Failed to allocate IDR for a new CB\n");
> > > > > + goto release_cb;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + cb->id = rc;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + kref_init(&cb->refcount);
> > > > > + spin_lock_init(&cb->lock);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * idr is 32-bit so we can safely OR it with a mask that is above
> > > > > + * 32 bit
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + *handle = cb->id | HL_MMAP_CB_MASK;
> > > > > + *handle <<= PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +release_cb:
> > > > > + cb_do_release(hdev, cb);
> > > > > +out_err:
> > > > > + *handle = 0;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return rc;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> >
> > --
> > Sincerely yours,
> > Mike.
> >
>

--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-28 09:41    [W:0.098 / U:31.708 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site