On 07/27/2016 02:57 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hello Kobayashi-san,
>
> (CC'ing Hans Verkuil and Marek Szyprowski)
>
> On Wednesday 27 Jul 2016 16:51:47 Kazunori Kobayashi wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a question about memory freeing by calling REQBUF(0) before all the
>> dmabuf fds exported with VIDIOC_EXPBUF are closed.
>>
>> In calling REQBUF(0), videobuf2-core returns -EBUSY when the reference count
>> of a vb2 buffer is more than 1. When dmabuf fds are not exported (usual
>> V4L2_MEMORY_MMAP case), the check is no problem, but when dmabuf fds are
>> exported and some of them are not closed (in other words the references to
>> that memory are left), we cannot succeed in calling REQBUF(0) despite being
>> able to free the memory after all the references are dropped.
>>
>> Actually REQBUF(0) does not force a vb2 buffer to be freed but decreases
>> the refcount of it. Also all the vb2 memory allocators that support dmabuf
>> exporting (dma-contig, dma-sg, vmalloc) implements memory freeing by
>> release() of dma_buf_ops, so I think there is no need to return -EBUSY when
>> exporting dmabuf fds.
>>
>> Could you please tell me what you think?
>
> I think you're right. vb2 allocates the vb2_buffer and the memops-specific
> structure separately. videobuf2-core.c will free the vb2_buffer instance, but
> won't touch the memops-specific structure or the buffer memory. Both of these
> are reference-counted in the memops allocators. We could thus allow
> REQBUFS(0)
> to proceed even when buffers have been exported (or at least after fixing the
> small issues we'll run into, I have a feeling that this is too easy to be
> true).
>
> Hans, Marek, any opinion on this ?
What is the use-case for this? What you are doing here is to either free all
existing buffers or reallocate buffers. We can decide to rely on refcounting,
but then you would create a second set of buffers (when re-allocating) or
leave a lot of unfreed memory behind. That's pretty hard on the memory usage.
I think the EBUSY is there to protect the user against him/herself: i.e. don't
call this unless you know all refs are closed.
Given the typical large buffersizes we're talking about, I think that EBUSY
makes sense.
Regards,
Hans
>
>> The code that I am talking about is in
>> drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c:
>>
>> if (*count == 0 || q->num_buffers != 0 || q->memory != memory) {
>> /*
>> * We already have buffers allocated, so first check if they
>> * are not in use and can be freed.
>> */
>> mutex_lock(&q->mmap_lock);
>> if (q->memory == VB2_MEMORY_MMAP && __buffers_in_use(q)) {
>> mutex_unlock(&q->mmap_lock);
>> dprintk(1, "memory in use, cannot free\n");
>> return -EBUSY;
>> }
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
