On 25-Jul-20 10:59 AM, wangyunjian wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Burakov, Anatoly [mailto:anatoly.bura...@intel.com]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2020 9:25 PM
To: wangyunjian <wangyunj...@huawei.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
david.march...@redhat.com
Cc: Lilijun (Jerry) <jerry.lili...@huawei.com>; xudingke
<xudin...@huawei.com>; sta...@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] eal/linux: do not create user mem map
repeatedly when it exists
On 23-Jul-20 3:48 PM, wangyunjian wrote:
From: Yunjian Wang <wangyunj...@huawei.com>
Currently, we will create new user mem map entry for the same memory
segment, but in fact it has already been added to the user mem maps.
It's not necessary to create it twice.
To resolve the issue, add support to remove the same entry in the
function compact_user_maps().
Fixes: 0cbce3a167f1 ("vfio: skip DMA map failure if already mapped")
Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Yunjian Wang <wangyunj...@huawei.com>
---
v2:
* Remove the same entry in the function compact_user_maps()
---
lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
index abb12a354..df99307b7 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
@@ -167,6 +167,10 @@ adjust_map(struct user_mem_map *src, struct
user_mem_map *end,
static int
merge_map(struct user_mem_map *left, struct user_mem_map *right)
{
+ /* merge the same maps into one */
+ if (memcmp(left, right, sizeof(struct user_mem_map)) == 0)
+ goto out;
+
merge_map looks for adjacent maps only, but does not handle maps that
are wholly contained within one another ("the same map" also matches
this definition). wouldn't it be better to check for that instead of
*just* handling identical maps?
What about using the initial implementation?
We don't create new user mem map entry for the same memory segment.
I don't like this implementation because it relies on particulars of how
VFIO mapping work without explicitly specifying them. I.e. it's prone to
breaking when changing code. That's not even mentioning that we have no
guarantees on kernel behavior in that particular case being identical on
all supported platforms.
I would honestly prefer an explicit compaction over implicit one.
@@ -1828,6 +1828,13 @@ container_dma_map(struct vfio_config *vfio_cfg,
uint64_t vaddr, uint64_t iova,
ret = -1;
goto out;
}
+
+ /* we don't need create new user mem map entry
+ * for the same memory segment.
+ */
+ if (errno == EBUSY || errno == EEXIST)
+ goto out;
+
/* create new user mem map entry */
new_map = &user_mem_maps->maps[user_mem_maps->n_maps++];
new_map->addr = vaddr;
Thanks,
Yunjian
if (left->addr + left->len != right->addr)
return 0;
if (left->iova + left->len != right->iova)
@@ -174,6 +178,7 @@ merge_map(struct user_mem_map *left, struct
user_mem_map *right)
left->len += right->len;
+out:
memset(right, 0, sizeof(*right));
return 1;
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
