Message-ID: <CAE=W-e0w2o2bO5dfzFfA+ZNr0J_c6AVxVLOcaFeStXHopQjiHw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 20 May 2015 23:49:25 +0200
From:	Lorenzo Nava <lorenx4@...il.com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] arm: DMA-API contiguous cacheable memory

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 02:57:36PM +0200, Lorenzo Nava wrote:
>> so probably currently is impossible to allocate a contiguous cachable
>> DMA memory. You can't use CMA, and the only functions which allow you
>> to use it are not compatible with sync functions.
>> Do you think the problem is the CMA design, the DMA API design, or
>> there is no problem at all and this is not something useful?
>
> Well, the whole issue of DMA from userspace is a fraught topic.  I
> consider what we have at the moment as mere luck than anything else -
> there are architecture maintainers who'd like to see dma_mmap_* be
> deleted from the kernel.
>
Well sometimes mmap can avoid non-necessary memory copies and boost
the performance. Of course it must be carefully managed to avoid big
problems.

> However, I have a problem with what you're trying to do.
>
> You want to allocate a large chunk of memory for DMA.  Large chunks
> of memory can _only_ come from CMA - the standard Linux allocators do
> _not_ cope well with large allocations.  Even 16K allocations can
> become difficult after the system has been running for a while.  So,
> CMA is really the only way to go to obtain large chunks of memory.
>
> You want this large chunk of memory to be cacheable.  CMA might be
> able to provide that.
>
> You want to DMA to this memory, and then read from it.  The problem
> there is, how do you ensure that the data you're reading is the data
> that the DMA wrote there.  If you have caching enabled, the caching
> model that we _have_ to assume is that the cache is infinite, and that
> it speculates aggressively.  This means that we can not guarantee that
> any data read through a cacheable mapping will be coherent with the
> DMA'd data.
>
> So, we have to flush the cache.  The problem is that with an infinite
> cache size model, we have to flush all possible lines associated with
> the buffer, because we don't know which might be in the cache and
> which are not.
>
> Of course, caches are finite, and we can say that if the size of the
> region being flushed is greater than the cache size (or multiple of the
> cache size), we _could_ just flush the entire cache instead.  (This can
> only work for non-SG stuff, as we don't know before hand how large the
> SG is in bytes.)
>
> However, here's the problem.  As I mentioned above, we have dma_mmap_*
> stuff, which works for memory allocated by dma_alloc_coherent().  The
> only reason mapping that memory into userspace works is because (for
> the non-coherent cache case) we map it in such a way that the caches
> are disabled, and this works fine.  For the coherent cache case, it
> doesn't matter that we map it with the caches enabled.  So both of these
> work.
>
> When you have a non-coherent cache _and_ you want the mapping to be
> cacheable, you have extra problems to worry about.  You need to know
> the type of the CPU cache.  If the CPU cache is physically indexed,
> physically tagged, then you can perform cache maintanence on any
> mapping of that memory, and you will hit the appropriate cache lines.
> For other types of caches, this is not true.  Hence, a userspace
> mapping of non-coherent cacheable memory with a cache which makes use
> of virtual addresses would need to be flushed at the virtual aliases -
> this is precisely why kernel arch maintainers don't like DMA from
> userspace.  It's brings with it huge problems.
>
> Thankfully, ARMv7 caches are PIPT - but that doesn't really give us
> "permission" to just consider PIPT for this case, especially for
> something which is used between arch code and driver code.
>
CPU cache type is an extremely interesting subject which honestly I
didn't consider.

> What I'm trying to say is that what you're asking for is not a simple
> issue - it needs lots of thought and consideration, more than I have
> time to spare (or likely have time to spare in the future, _most_ of
> my time is wasted trying to deal with the flood of email from these
> mailing lists rather than doing any real work - even non-relevant email
> has a non-zero time cost as it takes a certain amount of time to decide
> whether an email is relevant or not.)
>
And let me thank you for this explanation and for sharing your
knowledge that is really helping me.

>> Anyway it's not completely clear to me which is the difference between:
>>   - allocating memory and use sync function on memory mapped with dma_map_*()
>>   - allocating memory with dma_alloc_*() (with cacheable attributes)
>> and use the sync functions on it
>
> Let me say _for the third time_: dma_sync_*() on memory returned from
> dma_alloc_*() is not permitted.  Anyone who tells you different is
> just plain wrong, and is telling you to do something which is _not_
> supported by the API, and _will_ fail with some implementations
> including the ARM implementation if it uses the atomic pool to satisfy
> your allocation.
>
Ok, got it. Sync functions on dma_alloc_*() it's very bad :-)

>> It looks that the second just make alloc + map in a single step
>> instead of splitting the operation in two steps.
>> I'm sure I'm losing something, can you please help me understand that?
>
> The problem is that you're hitting two different costs: the cost from
> accessing data via an uncacheable mapping, vs the cost of having to do
> cache maintanence to ensure that you're reading the up-to-date data.
>
> At the end of the day, there's only one truth here: large DMA buffers
> on architectures which are not cache-coherent suck and require a non-zero
> cost to ensure that you can read the data written to the buffer by DMA,
> or that DMA can see the data you have written to the buffer.
>
> The final thing to mention is that the ARM cache maintanence instructions
> are not available in userspace, so you can't have userspace taking care
> of flushing the caches where they need to...
>
You're right. This is the crucial point: you can't guarantee that
accessed data is correct at any given time unless you know how stuffs
work at kernel level. Basically the only way is to make a sort of
synchronisation between user and kernel to be sure that accessed data
is actually updated.
The solution could be to implement a mechanism that doesn't make data
available to user until cache coherence was not correctly managed. To
be honest V4L implements exactly that mechanism: buffers are queued
and made available with mmap to user once the grab process is
completed, and cache coherence can then be guaranteed.

I'm a little bit disappointed because using CMA with non-coherent
memory is not currently possible, and this is something that could be
useful when developer is able to manage cache coherence (and doesn't
have sg available). I hoped that "bigphysarea" patch will be forever
forget and replaced by CMA, but it doesn't look like it is really
possible.

Thanks.
Lorenzo

> --
> FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up
> according to speedtest.net.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists