[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e9c3a7c20812151412va63c2ceob7d57ea91a8c208@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:12:21 -0700
From: "Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: "Sosnowski, Maciej" <maciej.sosnowski@...el.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"hskinnemoen@...el.com" <hskinnemoen@...el.com>,
"g.liakhovetski@....de" <g.liakhovetski@....de>,
"nicolas.ferre@...el.com" <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/13] dmaengine: up-level reference counting to the module level
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Sosnowski, Maciej
<maciej.sosnowski@...el.com> wrote:
> Dan,
>
> General concern I see about this change is that it makes impossible
> to rmmod ioatdma in case of NET_DMA enabled.
> This is a specific case of situation when client is permanently registered in dmaengine,
> making it impossible to rmmod any device with "public" channels.
> Ioatdma is just an example here.
> However in ioatdma case it would be problematic now to switch between CPU and DMA copy modes.
> It seems that the only way to disable DMA after loading ioatdma would be raising tcp_dma_copybreak
> to some high enough value to direct all buffers to CPU copy path.
> This way is yet rather more like hacking than "normal" usage way (like "rmmod ioatdma" used so far).
>
Hi Maciej,
I have been waiting for you to point this out because I believe it
shows where more work is needed in net_dma. The problem with net_dma
is that it never says "I am done with dma channels". The result was
the old/complicated per-operation reference counting in dmaengine that
lead to the, now deleted, comment for ioat_remove():
/*
* It is unsafe to remove this module: if removed while a requested
* dma is outstanding, esp. from tcp, it is possible to hang while
* waiting for something that will never finish. However, if you're
* feeling lucky, this usually works just fine.
*/
This also required the complexity of each client needing to handle
asynchronous channel removal events. In all other cases in the kernel
a module is pinned as long as it has users, so dmaengine was backwards
in this regard.
Putting the end-node principal to work here means that the
complexity/effort of determining when net_dma is done with channels
should reside in net_dma, not dmaengine. Since we cannot hook into a
"rmmod net" event to drop the dmaengine reference we will need some
out-of-band signal to enable "rmmod ioatdma" like detecting
network-idle, or having an explicit "dma disable" sysctl.
> Another issue I find problematic in this solution is that _any_ client
> declaring its presence in dmaengine causes holding reference for _all_ channels (and blocking them),
> does not matter if they are used or not.
> I agree with Guennadi's doubts here.
> Why not at least hold a reference only for channels with capabilities matching client's ones?
>
All channels share the same parent module, so taking a reference on
one will always involve blocking all channels. Private channels have
this granularity, and this is a primary difference between public and
private channels. I eventually want dmaengine to hook into cpu
hotplug notifications to guarantee that resources are only allocated
for channels with a non-zero ->table_count, but this is not there
today.
>> @@ -105,19 +106,8 @@ static ssize_t show_bytes_transferred(struct
>> device *dev, struct device_attribut static ssize_t
>> show_in_use(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char
>> *buf) { struct dma_chan *chan = to_dma_chan(dev);
>> - int in_use = 0;
>> -
>> - if (unlikely(chan->slow_ref) &&
>> - atomic_read(&chan->refcount.refcount) > 1)
>> - in_use = 1;
>> - else {
>> - if (local_read(&(per_cpu_ptr(chan->local,
>> - get_cpu())->refcount)) > 0)
>> - in_use = 1;
>> - put_cpu();
>> - }
>>
>> - return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", in_use);
>> + return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", chan->client_count);
>> }
>
> In this case show_in_use will not show if the channel is really in use
> but rather how many clients are present, including these with different capabilities.
> Thus this number does not even show number of "potential" users of the channel...
> Again, maybe it would be better to limit chan->client_count
> to number of at least potential users ( = matching capabilities)?
To be clear show_in_use was broken before because it only looked at a
per-cpu variable[1], the situation is better now because it indeed
shows "potential" users in the public case and actual users in the
private case. I.e. if a public channel client has the potential to
get this channel via dma_find_channel() then that will be reflected in
->client_count.
>
>>
>> /* Find a channel */
>> @@ -178,23 +228,16 @@ static void dma_client_chan_alloc(struct
>> dma_client *client)
>> list_for_each_entry(chan, &device->channels, device_node) {
>> if (!dma_chan_satisfies_mask(chan, client->cap_mask))
>> continue;
>> + if (!chan->client_count)
>> + continue;
>
> As cap_mask is per device not per channel, checking capabilites matching
> is not necessary to be repeated for every channel.
> It would be more efficient to do it once yet before
> list_for_each_entry(chan, &device->channels, device_node).
This is changed in later patches [2]. We repeat for each channel in
the dma_request_channel() case under the assumption that the client
may be smart enough to disambiguate the channels on other criteria.
>
>> @@ -420,6 +443,19 @@ int dma_async_device_register(struct dma_device
>> *device) }
>>
>> mutex_lock(&dma_list_mutex);
>> + list_for_each_entry(chan, &device->channels, device_node) {
>> + /* if clients are already waiting for channels we need to
>> + * take references on their behalf
>> + */
>> + if (dmaengine_ref_count && dma_chan_get(chan) == -ENODEV) {
>> + /* note we can only get here for the first
>> + * channel as the remaining channels are
>> + * guaranteed to get a reference
>> + */
>> + rc = -ENODEV;
>> + goto err_out;
>> + }
>> + }
>
> Going through this list_for_each_entry() loop makes sense only if there are any clients,
> so maybe it would be more efficient to move "if (dmaengine_ref_count)" check before
> list_for_each_entry(chan, &device->channels, device_node)?
Good point... will fix.
Thanks,
Dan
[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121448921721509&w=2
[2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=122835195303216&w=2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists