lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH v6 06/11] PCI: endpoint: Add support to handle multiple base for mapping outbound memory
Date
Hi Prabhakar-san,

> From: Prabhakar Mahadev Lad, Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 6:12 PM
<snip>
> > > @@ -122,31 +167,56 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_epc_mem_exit);
> > > void __iomem *pci_epc_mem_alloc_addr(struct pci_epc *epc,
> > > phys_addr_t *phys_addr, size_t size)
> > > {
> > > - int pageno;
> > > void __iomem *virt_addr = NULL;
> > > - struct pci_epc_mem *mem = epc->mem;
> > > - unsigned int page_shift = ilog2(mem->page_size);
> > > + struct pci_epc_mem *mem;
> > > + unsigned int page_shift;
> > > + int pageno = -EINVAL;
> > > int order;
> > > + int i;
> > >
> > > - size = ALIGN(size, mem->page_size);
> > > - order = pci_epc_mem_get_order(mem, size);
> > > -
> > > - mutex_lock(&mem->lock);
> > > - pageno = bitmap_find_free_region(mem->bitmap, mem->pages, order);
> > > - if (pageno < 0)
> > > - goto ret;
> > > + for (i = 0; i < epc->num_windows; i++) {
> > > + mem = epc->windows[i];
> > > + mutex_lock(&mem->lock);
> >
> > This is my feeling though, calling mutex_lock() in the loop seems
> > to cause overhead. And, if we call mutex_lock() at out-of the loop,
> > I think we can write single mutex_unlock() calling.
> >
> But the mutex is for each window, are you suggesting to add a global mutex ?

Oops, that's right. So, I'd like to recall.

> > > + size = ALIGN(size, mem->window.page_size);
> >
> > I'm sorry I should have realized this in the previous review,
> > but overwriting this size is possible to cause an issue at second time or more loops.
> > So, the first argument of ALIGN should be kept for the loop.
> >
> Could you please elaborate on this.

My concern is the following.

For example, the size of argument of pci_epc_mem_alloc_addr() is 4096.
epc->windows[0].window.page_size = 8192
--> then the size will be changed to 0.

epc->windows[1].window.page_size = 4096
--> since the size was changed to 0 on the first loop, the result is 0.
But, this should be 4096.

Does such a case never happen?
(Or, is my understanding incorrect?)

Best regards,
Yoshihiro Shimoda


> > > + order = pci_epc_mem_get_order(mem, size);
> > >
> > > - *phys_addr = mem->phys_base + ((phys_addr_t)pageno << page_shift);
> > > - virt_addr = ioremap(*phys_addr, size);
> > > - if (!virt_addr)
> > > - bitmap_release_region(mem->bitmap, pageno, order);
> > > + pageno = bitmap_find_free_region(mem->bitmap, mem->pages,
> > > + order);
> > > + if (pageno >= 0) {
> > > + page_shift = ilog2(mem->window.page_size);
> > > + *phys_addr = mem->window.phys_base +
> > > + ((phys_addr_t)pageno << page_shift);
> > > + virt_addr = ioremap(*phys_addr, size);
> > > + if (!virt_addr)
> > > + bitmap_release_region(mem->bitmap,
> > > + pageno, order);
> > > + mutex_unlock(&mem->lock);
> > > + return virt_addr;
> >
> > As I mentioned above, if mutex_lock() is called at out-of-loop,
> > we can use "goto ret;" here like the original code,
> >
> > > + }
> > > + mutex_unlock(&mem->lock);
> >
> > and we can remove this.
> >
> > > + }
> > >
> > > -ret:
> > > - mutex_unlock(&mem->lock);
> > > return virt_addr;
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_epc_mem_alloc_addr);
> > >
> > > +struct pci_epc_mem *pci_epc_get_matching_window(struct pci_epc *epc,
> > > + phys_addr_t phys_addr)
> > > +{
> > > + struct pci_epc_mem *mem;
> > > + int i;
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < epc->num_windows; i++) {
> > > + mem = epc->windows[i];
> > > +
> > > + if (phys_addr >= mem->window.phys_base &&
> > > + phys_addr < (mem->window.phys_base + mem->window.size))
> > > + return mem;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + return NULL;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > /**
> > > * pci_epc_mem_free_addr() - free the allocated memory address
> > > * @epc: the EPC device on which memory was allocated
> > > @@ -159,14 +229,23 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_epc_mem_alloc_addr);
> > > void pci_epc_mem_free_addr(struct pci_epc *epc, phys_addr_t phys_addr,
> > > void __iomem *virt_addr, size_t size)
> > > {
> > > + struct pci_epc_mem *mem;
> > > + unsigned int page_shift;
> > > + size_t page_size;
> > > int pageno;
> > > - struct pci_epc_mem *mem = epc->mem;
> > > - unsigned int page_shift = ilog2(mem->page_size);
> > > int order;
> > >
> > > + mem = pci_epc_get_matching_window(epc, phys_addr);
> > > + if (!mem) {
> > > + pr_err("failed to get matching window\n");
> > > + return;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + page_size = mem->window.page_size;
> > > + page_shift = ilog2(page_size);
> > > iounmap(virt_addr);
> > > - pageno = (phys_addr - mem->phys_base) >> page_shift;
> > > - size = ALIGN(size, mem->page_size);
> > > + pageno = (phys_addr - mem->window.phys_base) >> page_shift;
> > > + size = ALIGN(size, page_size);
> > > order = pci_epc_mem_get_order(mem, size);
> > > mutex_lock(&mem->lock);
> > > bitmap_release_region(mem->bitmap, pageno, order);
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/pci-epc.h b/include/linux/pci-epc.h
> > > index e0ed9d01f6e5..d5da11cf0f2a 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/pci-epc.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/pci-epc.h
> > > @@ -65,20 +65,28 @@ struct pci_epc_ops {
> > > struct module *owner;
> > > };
> > >
> > > +/**
> > > + * struct pci_epc_mem_window - address window of the endpoint controller
> > > + * @phys_base: physical base address of the PCI address window
> > > + * @size: the size of the PCI address window
> > > + * @page_size: size of each page
> > > + */
> > > +struct pci_epc_mem_window {
> > > + phys_addr_t phys_base;
> > > + size_t size;
> > > + size_t page_size;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > /**
> > > * struct pci_epc_mem - address space of the endpoint controller
> > > - * @phys_base: physical base address of the PCI address space
> > > - * @size: the size of the PCI address space
> > > + * @window: address window of the endpoint controller
> > > * @bitmap: bitmap to manage the PCI address space
> > > - * @pages: number of bits representing the address region
> > > - * @page_size: size of each page
> > > * @lock: mutex to protect bitmap
> > > + * @pages: number of bits representing the address region
> >
> > Perhaps, we should not change the "@pages" line.
> >
> OK will drop this change.
>
> Cheers,
> --Prabhakar
>
> > Best regards,
> > Yoshihiro Shimoda

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-04-03 11:34    [W:0.053 / U:3.988 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site