linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2] dma-mapping: benchmark: pretend DMA is transmitting

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 5 Feb 2021 10:32:26 +0000
From:   "Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)" <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
CC:     "m.szyprowski@...sung.com" <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        "robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linuxarm@...neuler.org" <linuxarm@...neuler.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] dma-mapping: benchmark: pretend DMA is transmitting



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:hch@....de]
> Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 10:21 PM
> To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>
> Cc: m.szyprowski@...sung.com; hch@....de; robin.murphy@....com;
> iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> linuxarm@...neuler.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dma-mapping: benchmark: pretend DMA is transmitting
> 
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 03:00:35PM +1300, Barry Song wrote:
> > +	__u32 dma_trans_ns; /* time for DMA transmission in ns */
> >  	__u64 expansion[10];	/* For future use */
> 
> We need to keep the struct size, so the expansion field needs to
> shrink by the equivalent amount of data that is added in dma_trans_ns.

Unfortunately I didn't put a rsv u32 field after dma_dir
in the original patch.
There were five 32bits data before expansion[]:

struct map_benchmark {
	__u64 avg_map_100ns; /* average map latency in 100ns */
	__u64 map_stddev; /* standard deviation of map latency */
	__u64 avg_unmap_100ns; /* as above */
	__u64 unmap_stddev;
	__u32 threads; /* how many threads will do map/unmap in parallel */
	__u32 seconds; /* how long the test will last */
	__s32 node; /* which numa node this benchmark will run on */
	__u32 dma_bits; /* DMA addressing capability */
	__u32 dma_dir; /* DMA data direction */
	__u64 expansion[10];	/* For future use */
};

My bad. That was really silly. I should have done the below from
the first beginning:
struct map_benchmark {
	__u64 avg_map_100ns; /* average map latency in 100ns */
	__u64 map_stddev; /* standard deviation of map latency */
	__u64 avg_unmap_100ns; /* as above */
	__u64 unmap_stddev;
	__u32 threads; /* how many threads will do map/unmap in parallel */
	__u32 seconds; /* how long the test will last */
	__s32 node; /* which numa node this benchmark will run on */
	__u32 dma_bits; /* DMA addressing capability */
	__u32 dma_dir; /* DMA data direction */
	__u32 rsv;
	__u64 expansion[10];	/* For future use */
};

So on 64bit system, this patch doesn't change the length of struct
as the new added u32 just fill the gap between dma_dir and expansion.

For 32bit system, this patch increases 4 bytes in the length.

I can keep the struct size unchanged by changing the struct to

struct map_benchmark {
	__u64 avg_map_100ns; /* average map latency in 100ns */
	__u64 map_stddev; /* standard deviation of map latency */
	__u64 avg_unmap_100ns; /* as above */
	__u64 unmap_stddev;
	__u32 threads; /* how many threads will do map/unmap in parallel */
	__u32 seconds; /* how long the test will last */
	__s32 node; /* which numa node this benchmark will run on */
	__u32 dma_bits; /* DMA addressing capability */
	__u32 dma_dir; /* DMA data direction */
	__u32 dma_trans_ns; /* time for DMA transmission in ns */

	__u32 exp; /* For future use */
	__u64 expansion[9];	/* For future use */
};

But the code is really ugly now.

Thanks
Barry