Hi Kieran,
Thank you for the patch.
On Thursday, 8 March 2018 02:05:27 EEST Kieran Bingham wrote:
> Adapt the dl->body0 object to use an object from the body pool. This
> greatly reduces the pressure on the TLB for IPMMU use cases, as all of
> the lists use a single allocation for the main body.
>
> The CLU and LUT objects pre-allocate a pool containing three bodies,
> allowing a userspace update before the hardware has committed a previous
> set of tables.
>
> Bodies are no longer 'freed' in interrupt context, but instead released
> back to their respective pools. This allows us to remove the garbage
> collector in the DLM.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+rene...@ideasonboard.com>
>
> ---
> v3:
> - 's/fragment/body', 's/fragments/bodies/'
> - CLU/LUT now allocate 3 bodies
> - vsp1_dl_list_fragments_free -> vsp1_dl_list_bodies_put
>
> v2:
> - Use dl->body0->max_entries to determine header offset, instead of the
> global constant VSP1_DL_NUM_ENTRIES which is incorrect.
> - squash updates for LUT, CLU, and fragment cleanup into single patch.
> (Not fully bisectable when separated)
>
> drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_clu.c | 27 ++-
> drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_clu.h | 1 +-
> drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_dl.c | 223 ++++++--------------------
> drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_dl.h | 3 +-
> drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_lut.c | 27 ++-
> drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_lut.h | 1 +-
> 6 files changed, 101 insertions(+), 181 deletions(-)
Still a nice diffstart :-)
[snip]
> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_dl.c
> b/drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_dl.c index 0208e72cb356..74476726451c
> 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_dl.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_dl.c
[snip]
> @@ -399,11 +311,10 @@ void vsp1_dl_body_write(struct vsp1_dl_body *dlb, u32
> reg, u32 data) * Display List Transaction Management
> */
>
> -static struct vsp1_dl_list *vsp1_dl_list_alloc(struct vsp1_dl_manager *dlm)
> +static struct vsp1_dl_list *vsp1_dl_list_alloc(struct vsp1_dl_manager
> *dlm,
> + struct vsp1_dl_body_pool *pool)
Given that the only caller of this function passes dlm->pool as the second
argument, can't you remove the second argument ?
> {
> struct vsp1_dl_list *dl;
> - size_t header_size;
> - int ret;
>
> dl = kzalloc(sizeof(*dl), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!dl)
> @@ -412,41 +323,39 @@ static struct vsp1_dl_list *vsp1_dl_list_alloc(struct
> vsp1_dl_manager *dlm) INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dl->bodies);
> dl->dlm = dlm;
>
> - /*
> - * Initialize the display list body and allocate DMA memory for the body
> - * and the optional header. Both are allocated together to avoid memory
> - * fragmentation, with the header located right after the body in
> - * memory.
> - */
> - header_size = dlm->mode == VSP1_DL_MODE_HEADER
> - ? ALIGN(sizeof(struct vsp1_dl_header), 8)
> - : 0;
> -
> - ret = vsp1_dl_body_init(dlm->vsp1, &dl->body0, VSP1_DL_NUM_ENTRIES,
> - header_size);
> - if (ret < 0) {
> - kfree(dl);
> + /* Retrieve a body from our DLM body pool */
s/body pool/body pool./
(And I would have said "Get a body" but that's up to you)
> + dl->body0 = vsp1_dl_body_get(pool);
> + if (!dl->body0)
> return NULL;
> - }
> -
> if (dlm->mode == VSP1_DL_MODE_HEADER) {
> - size_t header_offset = VSP1_DL_NUM_ENTRIES
> - * sizeof(*dl->body0.entries);
> + size_t header_offset = dl->body0->max_entries
> + * sizeof(*dl->body0->entries);
>
> - dl->header = ((void *)dl->body0.entries) + header_offset;
> - dl->dma = dl->body0.dma + header_offset;
> + dl->header = ((void *)dl->body0->entries) + header_offset;
> + dl->dma = dl->body0->dma + header_offset;
>
> memset(dl->header, 0, sizeof(*dl->header));
> - dl->header->lists[0].addr = dl->body0.dma;
> + dl->header->lists[0].addr = dl->body0->dma;
> }
>
> return dl;
> }
>
> +static void vsp1_dl_list_bodies_put(struct vsp1_dl_list *dl)
> +{
> + struct vsp1_dl_body *dlb, *tmp;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(dlb, tmp, &dl->bodies, list) {
> + list_del(&dlb->list);
> + vsp1_dl_body_put(dlb);
> + }
> +}
> +
> static void vsp1_dl_list_free(struct vsp1_dl_list *dl)
> {
> - vsp1_dl_body_cleanup(&dl->body0);
> - list_splice_init(&dl->bodies, &dl->dlm->gc_bodies);
> + vsp1_dl_body_put(dl->body0);
> + vsp1_dl_list_bodies_put(dl);
Too bad we can't keep the list splice, it's more efficient than iterating over
the list, but I suppose it's unavoidable if we want to reset the number of
used entries to 0 for each body. Beside, we should have a small number of
bodies only, so hopefully it won't be a big deal.
> +
> kfree(dl);
> }
>
> @@ -500,18 +409,13 @@ static void __vsp1_dl_list_put(struct vsp1_dl_list
> *dl)
>
> dl->has_chain = false;
>
> + vsp1_dl_list_bodies_put(dl);
> +
> /*
> - * We can't free bodies here as DMA memory can only be freed in
> - * interruptible context. Move all bodies to the display list manager's
> - * list of bodies to be freed, they will be garbage-collected by the
> - * work queue.
> + * body0 is reused as as an optimisation as presently every display list
> + * has at least one body, thus we reinitialise the entries list
s/entries list/entries list./
> */
> - if (!list_empty(&dl->bodies)) {
> - list_splice_init(&dl->bodies, &dl->dlm->gc_bodies);
> - schedule_work(&dl->dlm->gc_work);
> - }
We can certainly do this synchronously now that we don't need to free memory
anymore. I wonder however about the potential performance impact, as there's a
kfree() in vsp1_dl_list_free(). Do you think it could have a noticeable impact
on the time spent with interrupts disabled ?
> -
> - dl->body0.num_entries = 0;
> + dl->body0->num_entries = 0;
>
> list_add_tail(&dl->list, &dl->dlm->free);
> }
> @@ -548,7 +452,7 @@ void vsp1_dl_list_put(struct vsp1_dl_list *dl)
> */
> void vsp1_dl_list_write(struct vsp1_dl_list *dl, u32 reg, u32 data)
> {
> - vsp1_dl_body_write(&dl->body0, reg, data);
> + vsp1_dl_body_write(dl->body0, reg, data);
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -561,8 +465,7 @@ void vsp1_dl_list_write(struct vsp1_dl_list *dl, u32
> reg, u32 data)
> * in the order in which bodies are added.
> *
> * Adding a body to a display list passes ownership of the body to the
> list. The
> - * caller must not touch the body after this call, and must not free it
> - * explicitly with vsp1_dl_body_free().
Shouldn't we keep the last part of the sentence and adapt it ? Maybe something
like
and must not release it explicitly with vsp1_dl_body_put().
I know that you introduce a reference count in the next patches that would
make this comment invalid, up to this patch it should be correct. When
introducing reference-counting you can update the comment to state that the
reference must be released.
> + * caller must not touch the body after this call.
> *
> * Additional bodies are only usable for display lists in header mode.
> * Attempting to add a body to a header-less display list will return an
> error. @@ -620,7 +523,7 @@ static void vsp1_dl_list_fill_header(struct
> vsp1_dl_list *dl, bool is_last)
> * list was allocated.
> */
>
> - hdr->num_bytes = dl->body0.num_entries
> + hdr->num_bytes = dl->body0->num_entries
> * sizeof(*dl->header->lists);
>
> list_for_each_entry(dlb, &dl->bodies, list) {
> @@ -694,9 +597,9 @@ static void vsp1_dl_list_hw_enqueue(struct vsp1_dl_list
> *dl) * bit will be cleared by the hardware when the display list
> * processing starts.
> */
> - vsp1_write(vsp1, VI6_DL_HDR_ADDR(0), dl->body0.dma);
> + vsp1_write(vsp1, VI6_DL_HDR_ADDR(0), dl->body0->dma);
> vsp1_write(vsp1, VI6_DL_BODY_SIZE, VI6_DL_BODY_SIZE_UPD |
> - (dl->body0.num_entries *
> sizeof(*dl->header->lists)));
> + (dl->body0->num_entries * sizeof(*dl->header->lists)));
> } else {
> /*
> * In header mode, program the display list header address. If
> @@ -879,45 +782,12 @@ void vsp1_dlm_reset(struct vsp1_dl_manager *dlm)
> dlm->pending = NULL;
> }
>
> -/*
> - * Free all bodies awaiting to be garbage-collected.
> - *
> - * This function must be called without the display list manager lock held.
> - */
> -static void vsp1_dlm_bodies_free(struct vsp1_dl_manager *dlm)
> -{
> - unsigned long flags;
> -
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&dlm->lock, flags);
> -
> - while (!list_empty(&dlm->gc_bodies)) {
> - struct vsp1_dl_body *dlb;
> -
> - dlb = list_first_entry(&dlm->gc_bodies, struct vsp1_dl_body,
> - list);
> - list_del(&dlb->list);
> -
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dlm->lock, flags);
> - vsp1_dl_body_free(dlb);
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&dlm->lock, flags);
> - }
> -
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dlm->lock, flags);
> -}
> -
> -static void vsp1_dlm_garbage_collect(struct work_struct *work)
> -{
> - struct vsp1_dl_manager *dlm =
> - container_of(work, struct vsp1_dl_manager, gc_work);
> -
> - vsp1_dlm_bodies_free(dlm);
> -}
> -
> struct vsp1_dl_manager *vsp1_dlm_create(struct vsp1_device *vsp1,
> unsigned int index,
> unsigned int prealloc)
> {
> struct vsp1_dl_manager *dlm;
> + size_t header_size;
> unsigned int i;
>
> dlm = devm_kzalloc(vsp1->dev, sizeof(*dlm), GFP_KERNEL);
> @@ -932,13 +802,26 @@ struct vsp1_dl_manager *vsp1_dlm_create(struct
> vsp1_device *vsp1,
>
> spin_lock_init(&dlm->lock);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dlm->free);
> - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dlm->gc_bodies);
> - INIT_WORK(&dlm->gc_work, vsp1_dlm_garbage_collect);
> +
> + /*
> + * Initialize the display list body and allocate DMA memory for the body
> + * and the optional header. Both are allocated together to avoid memory
> + * fragmentation, with the header located right after the body in
> + * memory.
> + */
> + header_size = dlm->mode == VSP1_DL_MODE_HEADER
> + ? ALIGN(sizeof(struct vsp1_dl_header), 8)
> + : 0;
> +
> + dlm->pool = vsp1_dl_body_pool_create(vsp1, prealloc,
> + VSP1_DL_NUM_ENTRIES, header_size);
> + if (!dlm->pool)
> + return NULL;
>
> for (i = 0; i < prealloc; ++i) {
> struct vsp1_dl_list *dl;
>
> - dl = vsp1_dl_list_alloc(dlm);
> + dl = vsp1_dl_list_alloc(dlm, dlm->pool);
> if (!dl)
> return NULL;
>
> @@ -955,12 +838,10 @@ void vsp1_dlm_destroy(struct vsp1_dl_manager *dlm)
> if (!dlm)
> return;
>
> - cancel_work_sync(&dlm->gc_work);
> -
> list_for_each_entry_safe(dl, next, &dlm->free, list) {
> list_del(&dl->list);
> vsp1_dl_list_free(dl);
> }
>
> - vsp1_dlm_bodies_free(dlm);
> + vsp1_dl_body_pool_destroy(dlm->pool);
> }
[snip]
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
