Linaro-mm-sig

linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org

15 participants
2903 discussions

Re: [PATCH 2/5] udmabuf: change folios array from kmalloc to kvmalloc

by Christian König

Am 01.08.24 um 12:45 schrieb Huan Yang: > When PAGE_SIZE 4096, MAX_PAGE_ORDER 10, 64bit machine, > page_alloc only support 4MB. > If above this, trigger this warn and return NULL. > > udmabuf can change size limit, if change it to 3072(3GB), and then alloc > 3GB udmabuf, will fail create. > > [ 4080.876581] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > [ 4080.876843] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 2015 at mm/page_alloc.c:4556 __alloc_pages+0x2c8/0x350 > [ 4080.878839] RIP: 0010:__alloc_pages+0x2c8/0x350 > [ 4080.879470] Call Trace: > [ 4080.879473] <TASK> > [ 4080.879473] ? __alloc_pages+0x2c8/0x350 > [ 4080.879475] ? __warn.cold+0x8e/0xe8 > [ 4080.880647] ? __alloc_pages+0x2c8/0x350 > [ 4080.880909] ? report_bug+0xff/0x140 > [ 4080.881175] ? handle_bug+0x3c/0x80 > [ 4080.881556] ? exc_invalid_op+0x17/0x70 > [ 4080.881559] ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 > [ 4080.882077] ? udmabuf_create+0x131/0x400 > > Because MAX_PAGE_ORDER, kmalloc can max alloc 4096 * (1 << 10), 4MB > memory, each array entry is pointer(8byte), so can save 524288 pages(2GB). > > Further more, costly order(order 3) may not be guaranteed that it can be > applied for, due to fragmentation. > > This patch change udmabuf array use kvmalloc_array, this can fallback > alloc into vmalloc, which can guarantee allocation for any size and does > not affect the performance of kmalloc allocations. > > Signed-off-by: Huan Yang <link(a)vivo.com> Acked-by: Christian König <christian.koenig(a)amd.com> > --- > drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c | 26 +++++++++++++------------- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c b/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c > index d69aeada7367..a915714c5dce 100644 > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c > @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ static int vmap_udmabuf(struct dma_buf *buf, struct iosys_map *map) > > dma_resv_assert_held(buf->resv); > > - pages = kmalloc_array(ubuf->pagecount, sizeof(*pages), GFP_KERNEL); > + pages = kvmalloc_array(ubuf->pagecount, sizeof(*pages), GFP_KERNEL); > if (!pages) > return -ENOMEM; > > @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ static int vmap_udmabuf(struct dma_buf *buf, struct iosys_map *map) > pages[pg] = &ubuf->folios[pg]->page; > > vaddr = vm_map_ram(pages, ubuf->pagecount, -1); > - kfree(pages); > + kvfree(pages); > if (!vaddr) > return -EINVAL; > > @@ -203,8 +203,8 @@ static void release_udmabuf(struct dma_buf *buf) > put_sg_table(dev, ubuf->sg, DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL); > > unpin_all_folios(&ubuf->unpin_list); > - kfree(ubuf->offsets); > - kfree(ubuf->folios); > + kvfree(ubuf->offsets); > + kvfree(ubuf->folios); > kfree(ubuf); > } > > @@ -330,14 +330,14 @@ static long udmabuf_create(struct miscdevice *device, > if (!ubuf->pagecount) > goto err; > > - ubuf->folios = kmalloc_array(ubuf->pagecount, sizeof(*ubuf->folios), > - GFP_KERNEL); > + ubuf->folios = kvmalloc_array(ubuf->pagecount, sizeof(*ubuf->folios), > + GFP_KERNEL); > if (!ubuf->folios) { > ret = -ENOMEM; > goto err; > } > - ubuf->offsets = kcalloc(ubuf->pagecount, sizeof(*ubuf->offsets), > - GFP_KERNEL); > + ubuf->offsets = > + kvcalloc(ubuf->pagecount, sizeof(*ubuf->offsets), GFP_KERNEL); > if (!ubuf->offsets) { > ret = -ENOMEM; > goto err; > @@ -351,7 +351,7 @@ static long udmabuf_create(struct miscdevice *device, > goto err; > > pgcnt = list[i].size >> PAGE_SHIFT; > - folios = kmalloc_array(pgcnt, sizeof(*folios), GFP_KERNEL); > + folios = kvmalloc_array(pgcnt, sizeof(*folios), GFP_KERNEL); > if (!folios) { > ret = -ENOMEM; > goto err; > @@ -361,7 +361,7 @@ static long udmabuf_create(struct miscdevice *device, > ret = memfd_pin_folios(memfd, list[i].offset, end, > folios, pgcnt, &pgoff); > if (ret <= 0) { > - kfree(folios); > + kvfree(folios); > if (!ret) > ret = -EINVAL; > goto err; > @@ -390,7 +390,7 @@ static long udmabuf_create(struct miscdevice *device, > } > } > > - kfree(folios); > + kvfree(folios); > fput(memfd); > memfd = NULL; > } > @@ -406,8 +406,8 @@ static long udmabuf_create(struct miscdevice *device, > if (memfd) > fput(memfd); > unpin_all_folios(&ubuf->unpin_list); > - kfree(ubuf->offsets); > - kfree(ubuf->folios); > + kvfree(ubuf->offsets); > + kvfree(ubuf->folios); > kfree(ubuf); > return ret; > }

11 months

Re: [PATCH 1/5] udmabuf: cancel mmap page fault, direct map it

by Christian König

Am 01.08.24 um 12:45 schrieb Huan Yang: > The current udmabuf mmap uses a page fault mechanism to populate the vma. > > However, the current udmabuf has already obtained and pinned the folio > upon completion of the creation.This means that the physical memory has > already been acquired, rather than being accessed dynamically. The > current page fault method only saves some page table memory. > > As a result, the page fault mechanism has lost its purpose as a demanding > page. Due to the fact that page fault requires trapping into kernel mode > and filling in when accessing the corresponding virtual address in mmap, > this means that user mode access to virtual addresses needs to trap into > kernel mode. > > Therefore, when creating a large size udmabuf, this represents a > considerable overhead. > > Therefore, the current patch removes the page fault method of mmap and > instead fills it directly when mmap is triggered. > > Signed-off-by: Huan Yang <link(a)vivo.com> > --- > drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c b/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c > index 047c3cd2ceff..d69aeada7367 100644 > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c > @@ -38,36 +38,39 @@ struct udmabuf_folio { > struct list_head list; > }; > > -static vm_fault_t udmabuf_vm_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf) > -{ > - struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma; > - struct udmabuf *ubuf = vma->vm_private_data; > - pgoff_t pgoff = vmf->pgoff; > - unsigned long pfn; > - > - if (pgoff >= ubuf->pagecount) > - return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS; > - > - pfn = folio_pfn(ubuf->folios[pgoff]); > - pfn += ubuf->offsets[pgoff] >> PAGE_SHIFT; > - > - return vmf_insert_pfn(vma, vmf->address, pfn); > -} > - > -static const struct vm_operations_struct udmabuf_vm_ops = { > - .fault = udmabuf_vm_fault, > -}; > +static struct sg_table *get_sg_table(struct device *dev, struct dma_buf *buf, > + enum dma_data_direction direction); > > static int mmap_udmabuf(struct dma_buf *buf, struct vm_area_struct *vma) > { > struct udmabuf *ubuf = buf->priv; > + struct sg_table *table = ubuf->sg; > + unsigned long addr = vma->vm_start; > + struct sg_page_iter piter; > + int ret; > > if ((vma->vm_flags & (VM_SHARED | VM_MAYSHARE)) == 0) > return -EINVAL; > > - vma->vm_ops = &udmabuf_vm_ops; > - vma->vm_private_data = ubuf; > - vm_flags_set(vma, VM_PFNMAP | VM_DONTEXPAND | VM_DONTDUMP); > + if (!table) { > + table = get_sg_table(NULL, buf, 0); > + if (IS_ERR(table)) > + return PTR_ERR(table); > + ubuf->sg = table; > + } > + > + for_each_sgtable_page(table, &piter, vma->vm_pgoff) { That might not work correctly. We intentionally remove the pages from the sgtable when it is shared between devices. Additional to that the sgtable is *not* a page container, but rather a DMA address container. So that here is also a rather bad idea from the design side. Regards, Christian. > + struct page *page = sg_page_iter_page(&piter); > + > + ret = remap_pfn_range(vma, addr, page_to_pfn(page), PAGE_SIZE, > + vma->vm_page_prot); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + addr += PAGE_SIZE; > + if (addr >= vma->vm_end) > + return 0; > + } > + > return 0; > } > > @@ -126,6 +129,10 @@ static struct sg_table *get_sg_table(struct device *dev, struct dma_buf *buf, > sg_set_folio(sgl, ubuf->folios[i], PAGE_SIZE, > ubuf->offsets[i]); > > + // if dev is NULL, no need to sync. > + if (!dev) > + return sg; > + > ret = dma_map_sgtable(dev, sg, direction, 0); > if (ret < 0) > goto err_map; > @@ -206,20 +213,21 @@ static int begin_cpu_udmabuf(struct dma_buf *buf, > { > struct udmabuf *ubuf = buf->priv; > struct device *dev = ubuf->device->this_device; > - int ret = 0; > + struct sg_table *sg; > > - if (!ubuf->sg) { > - ubuf->sg = get_sg_table(dev, buf, direction); > - if (IS_ERR(ubuf->sg)) { > - ret = PTR_ERR(ubuf->sg); > - ubuf->sg = NULL; > - } > - } else { > + if (ubuf->sg) { > dma_sync_sg_for_cpu(dev, ubuf->sg->sgl, ubuf->sg->nents, > direction); > + return 0; > } > > - return ret; > + sg = get_sg_table(dev, buf, direction); > + if (IS_ERR(sg)) > + return PTR_ERR(sg); > + > + ubuf->sg = sg; > + > + return 0; > } > > static int end_cpu_udmabuf(struct dma_buf *buf,

11 months

Re: [PATCH] udmabuf: use kmem_cache to alloc udmabuf folio

by Daniel Vetter

On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 11:34:49AM +0800, Huan Yang wrote: > The current udmabuf_folio contains a list_head and the corresponding > folio pointer, with a size of 24 bytes. udmabuf_folio uses kmalloc to > allocate memory. > > However, kmalloc is a public pool, starting from 64 bytes. This means > that each udmabuf_folio allocation will waste 40 bytes. > > Considering that each udmabuf creates a folio corresponding to a > udmabuf_folio, the wasted memory can be significant in the case of > memory fragmentation. > > Furthermore, if udmabuf is frequently used, the allocation and > deallocation of udmabuf_folio will also be frequent. > > Therefore, this patch adds a kmem_cache dedicated to the allocation and > deallocation of udmabuf_folio.This is expected to improve the > performance of allocation and deallocation within the expected range, > while also avoiding memory waste. > > Signed-off-by: Huan Yang <link(a)vivo.com> > --- > drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c | 18 +++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c b/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c > index 047c3cd2ceff..db4de8c745ce 100644 > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c > @@ -24,6 +24,8 @@ static int size_limit_mb = 64; > module_param(size_limit_mb, int, 0644); > MODULE_PARM_DESC(size_limit_mb, "Max size of a dmabuf, in megabytes. Default is 64."); > > +static struct kmem_cache *udmabuf_folio_cachep; > + > struct udmabuf { > pgoff_t pagecount; > struct folio **folios; > @@ -169,7 +171,7 @@ static void unpin_all_folios(struct list_head *unpin_list) > unpin_folio(ubuf_folio->folio); > > list_del(&ubuf_folio->list); > - kfree(ubuf_folio); > + kmem_cache_free(udmabuf_folio_cachep, ubuf_folio); > } > } > > @@ -178,7 +180,7 @@ static int add_to_unpin_list(struct list_head *unpin_list, > { > struct udmabuf_folio *ubuf_folio; > > - ubuf_folio = kzalloc(sizeof(*ubuf_folio), GFP_KERNEL); > + ubuf_folio = kmem_cache_alloc(udmabuf_folio_cachep, GFP_KERNEL); > if (!ubuf_folio) > return -ENOMEM; > > @@ -492,10 +494,20 @@ static int __init udmabuf_dev_init(void) > if (ret < 0) { > pr_err("Could not setup DMA mask for udmabuf device\n"); > misc_deregister(&udmabuf_misc); misc_deregister() is now called twice in this error path, I think you've forgotten to delete this line too? Otherwise lgtm. -Sima > - return ret; > + goto err; > + } > + > + udmabuf_folio_cachep = KMEM_CACHE(udmabuf_folio, 0); > + if (unlikely(!udmabuf_folio_cachep)) { > + ret = -ENOMEM; > + goto err; > } > > return 0; > + > +err: > + misc_deregister(&udmabuf_misc); > + return ret; > } > > static void __exit udmabuf_dev_exit(void) > > base-commit: cd19ac2f903276b820f5d0d89de0c896c27036ed > -- > 2.45.2 > -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch

11 months

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Introduce DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ_FILE heap flag

by Daniel Vetter

On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 08:04:04PM +0800, Huan Yang wrote: > > 在 2024/7/30 17:05, Huan Yang 写道: > > > > 在 2024/7/30 16:56, Daniel Vetter 写道: > > > [????????? daniel.vetter(a)ffwll.ch ????????? > > > https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification?????????????] > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 03:57:44PM +0800, Huan Yang wrote: > > > > UDMA-BUF step: > > > > 1. memfd_create > > > > 2. open file(buffer/direct) > > > > 3. udmabuf create > > > > 4. mmap memfd > > > > 5. read file into memfd vaddr > > > Yeah this is really slow and the worst way to do it. You absolutely want > > > to start _all_ the io before you start creating the dma-buf, ideally > > > with > > > everything running in parallel. But just starting the direct I/O with > > > async and then creating the umdabuf should be a lot faster and avoid > > That's greate, Let me rephrase that, and please correct me if I'm wrong. > > > > UDMA-BUF step: > > 1. memfd_create > > 2. mmap memfd > > 3. open file(buffer/direct) > > 4. start thread to async read > > 3. udmabuf create > > > > With this, can improve > > I just test with it. Step is: > > UDMA-BUF step: > 1. memfd_create > 2. mmap memfd > 3. open file(buffer/direct) > 4. start thread to async read > 5. udmabuf create > > 6 . join wait > > 3G file read all step cost 1,527,103,431ns, it's greate. Ok that's almost the throughput of your patch set, which I think is close enough. The remaining difference is probably just the mmap overhead, not sure whether/how we can do direct i/o to an fd directly ... in principle it's possible for any file that uses the standard pagecache. -Sima -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch

11 months

Re: [PATCH v3] udmabuf: use kmem_cache to alloc udmabuf folio

by Christophe JAILLET

Le 31/07/2024 à 09:37, Huan Yang a écrit : > The current udmabuf_folio contains a list_head and the corresponding > folio pointer, with a size of 24 bytes. udmabuf_folio uses kmalloc to > allocate memory. > > However, kmalloc is a public pool, starting from 8,16,32 bytes. > Additionally, if the size is not aligned with the kmalloc size, it will > be rounded up to the corresponding size. > This means that each udmabuf_folio allocation will get 32 bytes, and > waste 8 bytes. > > Considering that each udmabuf creates a folio corresponding to a > udmabuf_folio, the wasted memory can be significant in the case of > memory fragmentation. > > Furthermore, if udmabuf is frequently used, the allocation and > deallocation of udmabuf_folio will also be frequent. > > Therefore, this patch adds a kmem_cache dedicated to the allocation and > deallocation of udmabuf_folio.This is expected to improve the > performance of allocation and deallocation within the expected range, > while also avoiding memory waste. > > Signed-off-by: Huan Yang <link(a)vivo.com> > --- > v3 -> v2: fix error description. > v2 -> v1: fix double unregister, remove unlikely. > drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c | 19 +++++++++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c b/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c > index 047c3cd2ceff..c112c58ef09a 100644 > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c > @@ -24,6 +24,8 @@ static int size_limit_mb = 64; > module_param(size_limit_mb, int, 0644); > MODULE_PARM_DESC(size_limit_mb, "Max size of a dmabuf, in megabytes. Default is 64."); > > +static struct kmem_cache *udmabuf_folio_cachep; > + > struct udmabuf { > pgoff_t pagecount; > struct folio **folios; > @@ -169,7 +171,7 @@ static void unpin_all_folios(struct list_head *unpin_list) > unpin_folio(ubuf_folio->folio); > > list_del(&ubuf_folio->list); > - kfree(ubuf_folio); > + kmem_cache_free(udmabuf_folio_cachep, ubuf_folio); > } > } > > @@ -178,7 +180,7 @@ static int add_to_unpin_list(struct list_head *unpin_list, > { > struct udmabuf_folio *ubuf_folio; > > - ubuf_folio = kzalloc(sizeof(*ubuf_folio), GFP_KERNEL); > + ubuf_folio = kmem_cache_alloc(udmabuf_folio_cachep, GFP_KERNEL); > if (!ubuf_folio) > return -ENOMEM; > > @@ -491,11 +493,20 @@ static int __init udmabuf_dev_init(void) > DMA_BIT_MASK(64)); > if (ret < 0) { > pr_err("Could not setup DMA mask for udmabuf device\n"); > - misc_deregister(&udmabuf_misc); > - return ret; > + goto err; > + } > + > + udmabuf_folio_cachep = KMEM_CACHE(udmabuf_folio, 0); > + if (!udmabuf_folio_cachep) { > + ret = -ENOMEM; > + goto err; > } > > return 0; > + > +err: > + misc_deregister(&udmabuf_misc); > + return ret; > } > > static void __exit udmabuf_dev_exit(void) Hi, should a kmem_cache_destroy() be also added in udmabuf_dev_exit()? CJ > > base-commit: cd19ac2f903276b820f5d0d89de0c896c27036ed

11 months

Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] dma-buf: heaps: support alloc async read file

by kernel test robot

Hi Huan, kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings: [auto build test WARNING on 931a3b3bccc96e7708c82b30b2b5fa82dfd04890] url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Huan-Yang/dma-buf-heaps-Intr… base: 931a3b3bccc96e7708c82b30b2b5fa82dfd04890 patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240730075755.10941-4-link%40vivo.com patch subject: [PATCH v2 3/5] dma-buf: heaps: support alloc async read file config: xtensa-allyesconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240731/202407312202.LhLTLEhX-lkp@…) compiler: xtensa-linux-gcc (GCC) 14.1.0 reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240731/202407312202.LhLTLEhX-lkp@…) If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp(a)intel.com> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202407312202.LhLTLEhX-lkp@intel.com/ All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>): drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c:45: warning: Function parameter or struct member 'priv' not described in 'dma_heap' drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c:45: warning: Function parameter or struct member 'heap_devt' not described in 'dma_heap' drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c:45: warning: Function parameter or struct member 'list' not described in 'dma_heap' drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c:45: warning: Function parameter or struct member 'heap_cdev' not described in 'dma_heap' >> drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c:158: warning: Function parameter or struct member 'lock' not described in 'dma_heap_file_control' drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c:482: warning: expecting prototype for Trigger sync file read, read into dma(). Prototype was for dma_heap_read_file_sync() instead vim +158 drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c 133 134 /** 135 * struct dma_heap_file_control - global control of dma_heap file read. 136 * @works: @dma_heap_file_work's list head. 137 * 138 * @threadwq: wait queue for @work_thread, if commit work, @work_thread 139 * wakeup and read this work's file contains. 140 * 141 * @workwq: used for main thread wait for file read end, if allocation 142 * end before file read. @dma_heap_file_task ref effect this. 143 * 144 * @work_thread: file read kthread. the dma_heap_file_task work's consumer. 145 * 146 * @heap_fwork_cachep: @dma_heap_file_work's cachep, it's alloc/free frequently. 147 * 148 * @nr_work: global number of how many work committed. 149 */ 150 struct dma_heap_file_control { 151 struct list_head works; 152 spinlock_t lock; // only lock for @works. 153 wait_queue_head_t threadwq; 154 wait_queue_head_t workwq; 155 struct task_struct *work_thread; 156 struct kmem_cache *heap_fwork_cachep; 157 atomic_t nr_work; > 158 }; 159 -- 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

11 months

Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] dma-buf: heaps: Introduce DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ_FILE heap flag

by kernel test robot

Hi Huan, kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings: [auto build test WARNING on 931a3b3bccc96e7708c82b30b2b5fa82dfd04890] url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Huan-Yang/dma-buf-heaps-Intr… base: 931a3b3bccc96e7708c82b30b2b5fa82dfd04890 patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240730075755.10941-2-link%40vivo.com patch subject: [PATCH v2 1/5] dma-buf: heaps: Introduce DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ_FILE heap flag config: xtensa-allyesconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240731/202407311822.ZneNMq5I-lkp@…) compiler: xtensa-linux-gcc (GCC) 14.1.0 reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240731/202407311822.ZneNMq5I-lkp@…) If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp(a)intel.com> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202407311822.ZneNMq5I-lkp@intel.com/ All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>): drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c:44: warning: Function parameter or struct member 'priv' not described in 'dma_heap' drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c:44: warning: Function parameter or struct member 'heap_devt' not described in 'dma_heap' drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c:44: warning: Function parameter or struct member 'list' not described in 'dma_heap' drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c:44: warning: Function parameter or struct member 'heap_cdev' not described in 'dma_heap' >> drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c:104: warning: expecting prototype for Trigger sync file read, read into dma(). Prototype was for dma_heap_read_file_sync() instead vim +104 drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c 86 87 /** 88 * Trigger sync file read, read into dma-buf. 89 * 90 * @dmabuf: which we done alloced and export. 91 * @heap_file: file info wrapper to read from. 92 * 93 * Whether to use buffer I/O or direct I/O depends on the mode when the 94 * file is opened. 95 * Remember, if use direct I/O, file must be page aligned. 96 * Since the buffer used for file reading is provided by dma-buf, when 97 * using direct I/O, the file content will be directly filled into 98 * dma-buf without the need for additional CPU copying. 99 * 100 * 0 on success, negative if anything wrong. 101 */ 102 static int dma_heap_read_file_sync(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, 103 struct dma_heap_file *heap_file) > 104 { 105 struct iosys_map map; 106 ssize_t bytes; 107 int ret; 108 109 ret = dma_buf_vmap(dmabuf, &map); 110 if (ret) 111 return ret; 112 113 /** 114 * The kernel_read_file function can handle file reading effectively, 115 * and if the return value does not match the file size, 116 * then it indicates an error. 117 */ 118 bytes = kernel_read_file(heap_file->file, 0, &map.vaddr, dmabuf->size, 119 &heap_file->fsize, READING_POLICY); 120 if (bytes != heap_file->fsize) 121 ret = -EIO; 122 123 dma_buf_vunmap(dmabuf, &map); 124 125 return ret; 126 } 127 -- 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

11 months

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Introduce DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ_FILE heap flag

by T.J. Mercier

On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 1:14 AM Huan Yang <link(a)vivo.com> wrote: > > > 在 2024/7/30 16:03, Christian König 写道: > > Am 30.07.24 um 09:57 schrieb Huan Yang: > >> Background > >> ==== > >> Some user may need load file into dma-buf, current way is: > >> 1. allocate a dma-buf, get dma-buf fd > >> 2. mmap dma-buf fd into user vaddr > >> 3. read(file_fd, vaddr, fsz) > >> Due to dma-buf user map can't support direct I/O[1], the file read > >> must be buffer I/O. > >> > >> This means that during the process of reading the file into dma-buf, > >> page cache needs to be generated, and the corresponding content needs to > >> be first copied to the page cache before being copied to the dma-buf. > >> > >> This way worked well when reading relatively small files before, as > >> the page cache can cache the file content, thus improving performance. > >> > >> However, there are new challenges currently, especially as AI models are > >> becoming larger and need to be shared between DMA devices and the CPU > >> via dma-buf. > >> > >> For example, our 7B model file size is around 3.4GB. Using the > >> previous would mean generating a total of 3.4GB of page cache > >> (even if it will be reclaimed), and also requiring the copying of 3.4GB > >> of content between page cache and dma-buf. > >> > >> Due to the limited resources of system memory, files in the gigabyte > >> range > >> cannot persist in memory indefinitely, so this portion of page cache may > >> not provide much assistance for subsequent reads. Additionally, the > >> existence of page cache will consume additional system resources due to > >> the extra copying required by the CPU. > >> > >> Therefore, I think it is necessary for dma-buf to support direct I/O. > >> > >> However, direct I/O file reads cannot be performed using the buffer > >> mmaped by the user space for the dma-buf.[1] > >> > >> Here are some discussions on implementing direct I/O using dma-buf: > >> > >> mmap[1] > >> --- > >> dma-buf never support user map vaddr use of direct I/O. > >> > >> udmabuf[2] > >> --- > >> Currently, udmabuf can use the memfd method to read files into > >> dma-buf in direct I/O mode. > >> > >> However, if the size is large, the current udmabuf needs to adjust the > >> corresponding size_limit(default 64MB). > >> But using udmabuf for files at the 3GB level is not a very good > >> approach. > >> It needs to make some adjustments internally to handle this.[3] Or else, > >> fail create. > >> > >> But, it is indeed a viable way to enable dma-buf to support direct I/O. > >> However, it is necessary to initiate the file read after the memory > >> allocation > >> is completed, and handle race conditions carefully. > >> > >> sendfile/splice[4] > >> --- > >> Another way to enable dma-buf to support direct I/O is by implementing > >> splice_write/write_iter in the dma-buf file operations (fops) to adapt > >> to the sendfile method. > >> However, the current sendfile/splice calls are based on pipe. When using > >> direct I/O to read a file, the content needs to be copied to the buffer > >> allocated by the pipe (default 64KB), and then the dma-buf fops' > >> splice_write needs to be called to write the content into the dma-buf. > >> This approach requires serially reading the content of file pipe size > >> into the pipe buffer and then waiting for the dma-buf to be written > >> before reading the next one.(The I/O performance is relatively weak > >> under direct I/O.) > >> Moreover, due to the existence of the pipe buffer, even when using > >> direct I/O and not needing to generate additional page cache, > >> there still needs to be a CPU copy. > >> > >> copy_file_range[5] > >> --- > >> Consider of copy_file_range, It only supports copying files within the > >> same file system. Similarly, it is not very practical. > >> > >> > >> So, currently, there is no particularly suitable solution on VFS to > >> allow dma-buf to support direct I/O for large file reads. > >> > >> This patchset provides an idea to complete file reads when requesting a > >> dma-buf. > >> > >> Introduce DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ_FILE heap flag > >> === > >> This patch provides a method to immediately read the file content after > >> the dma-buf is allocated, and only returns the dma-buf file descriptor > >> after the file is fully read. > >> > >> Since the dma-buf file descriptor is not returned, no other thread can > >> access it except for the current thread, so we don't need to worry about > >> race conditions. > > > > That is a completely false assumption. > Can you provide a detailed explanation as to why this assumption is > incorrect? thanks. > > > >> > >> Map the dma-buf to the vmalloc area and initiate file reads in kernel > >> space, supporting both buffer I/O and direct I/O. > >> > >> This patch adds the DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ heap_flag for user. > >> When a user needs to allocate a dma-buf and read a file, they should > >> pass this heap flag. As the size of the file being read is fixed, > >> there is no > >> need to pass the 'len' parameter. Instead, The file_fd needs to be > >> passed to > >> indicate to the kernel the file that needs to be read. > >> > >> The file open flag determines the mode of file reading. > >> But, please note that if direct I/O(O_DIRECT) is needed to read the > >> file, > >> the file size must be page aligned. (with patch 2-5, no need) > >> > >> Therefore, for the user, len and file_fd are mutually exclusive, > >> and they are combined using a union. > >> > >> Once the user obtains the dma-buf fd, the dma-buf directly contains the > >> file content. > > > > And I'm repeating myself, but this is a complete NAK from my side to > > this approach. > > > > We pointed out multiple ways of how to implement this cleanly and not > > by hacking functionality into the kernel which absolutely doesn't > > belong there. > In this patchset, I have provided performance comparisons of each of > these methods. Can you please provide more opinions? > > > > Regards, > > Christian. > > > >> > >> Patch 1 implement it. > >> > >> Patch 2-5 provides an approach for performance improvement. > >> > >> The DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ_FILE heap flag patch enables us to > >> synchronously read files using direct I/O. > >> > >> This approach helps to save CPU copying and avoid a certain degree of > >> memory thrashing (page cache generation and reclamation) > >> > >> When dealing with large file sizes, the benefits of this approach become > >> particularly significant. > >> > >> However, there are currently some methods that can improve performance, > >> not just save system resources: > >> > >> Due to the large file size, for example, a AI 7B model of around > >> 3.4GB, the > >> time taken to allocate DMA-BUF memory will be relatively long. Waiting > >> for the allocation to complete before reading the file will add to the > >> overall time consumption. Therefore, the total time for DMA-BUF > >> allocation and file read can be calculated using the formula > >> T(total) = T(alloc) + T(I/O) > >> > >> However, if we change our approach, we don't necessarily need to wait > >> for the DMA-BUF allocation to complete before initiating I/O. In fact, > >> during the allocation process, we already hold a portion of the page, > >> which means that waiting for subsequent page allocations to complete > >> before carrying out file reads is actually unfair to the pages that have > >> already been allocated. > >> > >> The allocation of pages is sequential, and the reading of the file is > >> also sequential, with the content and size corresponding to the file. > >> This means that the memory location for each page, which holds the > >> content of a specific position in the file, can be determined at the > >> time of allocation. > >> > >> However, to fully leverage I/O performance, it is best to wait and > >> gather a certain number of pages before initiating batch processing. > >> > >> The default gather size is 128MB. So, ever gathered can see as a file > >> read > >> work, it maps the gather page to the vmalloc area to obtain a continuous > >> virtual address, which is used as a buffer to store the contents of the > >> corresponding file. So, if using direct I/O to read a file, the file > >> content will be written directly to the corresponding dma-buf buffer > >> memory > >> without any additional copying.(compare to pipe buffer.) > >> > >> Consider other ways to read into dma-buf. If we assume reading after > >> mmap > >> dma-buf, we need to map the pages of the dma-buf to the user virtual > >> address space. Also, udmabuf memfd need do this operations too. > >> Even if we support sendfile, the file copy also need buffer, you must > >> setup it. > >> So, mapping pages to the vmalloc area does not incur any additional > >> performance overhead compared to other methods.[6] > >> > >> Certainly, the administrator can also modify the gather size through > >> patch5. > >> > >> The formula for the time taken for system_heap buffer allocation and > >> file reading through async_read is as follows: > >> > >> T(total) = T(first gather page) + Max(T(remain alloc), T(I/O)) > >> > >> Compared to the synchronous read: > >> T(total) = T(alloc) + T(I/O) > >> > >> If the allocation time or I/O time is long, the time difference will be > >> covered by the maximum value between the allocation and I/O. The other > >> party will be concealed. > >> > >> Therefore, the larger the size of the file that needs to be read, the > >> greater the corresponding benefits will be. > >> > >> How to use > >> === > >> Consider the current pathway for loading model files into DMA-BUF: > >> 1. open dma-heap, get heap fd > >> 2. open file, get file_fd(can't use O_DIRECT) > >> 3. use file len to allocate dma-buf, get dma-buf fd > >> 4. mmap dma-buf fd, get vaddr > >> 5. read(file_fd, vaddr, file_size) into dma-buf pages > >> 6. share, attach, whatever you want > >> > >> Use DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ_FILE JUST a little change: > >> 1. open dma-heap, get heap fd > >> 2. open file, get file_fd(buffer/direct) > >> 3. allocate dma-buf with DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ_FILE heap flag, > >> set file_fd > >> instead of len. get dma-buf fd(contains file content) > >> 4. share, attach, whatever you want > >> > >> So, test it is easy. > >> > >> How to test > >> === > >> The performance comparison will be conducted for the following > >> scenarios: > >> 1. normal > >> 2. udmabuf with [3] patch > >> 3. sendfile > >> 4. only patch 1 > >> 5. patch1 - patch4. > >> > >> normal: > >> 1. open dma-heap, get heap fd > >> 2. open file, get file_fd(can't use O_DIRECT) > >> 3. use file len to allocate dma-buf, get dma-buf fd > >> 4. mmap dma-buf fd, get vaddr > >> 5. read(file_fd, vaddr, file_size) into dma-buf pages > >> 6. share, attach, whatever you want > >> > >> UDMA-BUF step: > >> 1. memfd_create > >> 2. open file(buffer/direct) > >> 3. udmabuf create > >> 4. mmap memfd > >> 5. read file into memfd vaddr > >> > >> Sendfile step(need suit splice_write/write_iter, just use to compare): > >> 1. open dma-heap, get heap fd > >> 2. open file, get file_fd(buffer/direct) > >> 3. use file len to allocate dma-buf, get dma-buf fd > >> 4. sendfile file_fd to dma-buf fd > >> 6. share, attach, whatever you want > >> > >> patch1/patch1-4: > >> 1. open dma-heap, get heap fd > >> 2. open file, get file_fd(buffer/direct) > >> 3. allocate dma-buf with DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ_FILE heap flag, > >> set file_fd > >> instead of len. get dma-buf fd(contains file content) > >> 4. share, attach, whatever you want > >> > >> You can create a file to test it. Compare the performance gap between > >> the two. > >> It is best to compare the differences in file size from KB to MB to GB. > >> > >> The following test data will compare the performance differences > >> between 512KB, > >> 8MB, 1GB, and 3GB under various scenarios. > >> > >> Performance Test > >> === > >> 12G RAM phone > >> UFS4.0(the maximum speed is 4GB/s. ), > >> f2fs > >> kernel 6.1 with patch[7] (or else, can't support kvec direct I/O > >> read.) > >> no memory pressure. > >> drop_cache is used for each test. > >> > >> The average of 5 test results: > >> | scheme-size | 512KB(ns) | 8MB(ns) | 1GB(ns) | > >> 3GB(ns) | > >> | ------------------- | ---------- | ---------- | ------------- | > >> ------------- | > >> | normal | 2,790,861 | 14,535,784 | 1,520,790,492 | > >> 3,332,438,754 | > >> | udmabuf buffer I/O | 1,704,046 | 11,313,476 | 821,348,000 | > >> 2,108,419,923 | > >> | sendfile buffer I/O | 3,261,261 | 12,112,292 | 1,565,939,938 | > >> 3,062,052,984 | > >> | patch1-4 buffer I/O | 2,064,538 | 10,771,474 | 986,338,800 | > >> 2,187,570,861 | > >> | sendfile direct I/O | 12,844,231 | 37,883,938 | 5,110,299,184 | > >> 9,777,661,077 | > >> | patch1 direct I/O | 813,215 | 6,962,092 | 2,364,211,877 | > >> 5,648,897,554 | > >> | udmabuf direct I/O | 1,289,554 | 8,968,138 | 921,480,784 | > >> 2,158,305,738 | > >> | patch1-4 direct I/O | 1,957,661 | 6,581,999 | 520,003,538 | > >> 1,400,006,107 | > > With this test, sendfile can't give a good help base on pipe buffer. > > udmabuf is good, but I think our oem driver can't suit it. (And, AOSP do > not open this feature) Hi Huan, We should be able to turn on udmabuf for the Android kernels. We don't have CONFIG_UDMABUF because nobody has wanted it so far. It's encouraging to see your latest results! -T.J. > > Anyway, I am sending this patchset in the hope of further discussion. > > Thanks. > > >> > >> So, based on the test results: > >> > >> When the file is large, the patchset has the highest performance. > >> Compared to normal, patchset is a 50% improvement; > >> Compared to normal, patch1 only showed a degradation of 41%. > >> patch1 typical performance breakdown is as follows: > >> 1. alloc cost 188,802,693 ns > >> 2. vmap cost 42,491,385 ns > >> 3. file read cost 4,180,876,702 ns > >> Therefore, directly performing a single direct I/O read on a large file > >> may not be the most optimal way for performance. > >> > >> The performance of direct I/O implemented by the sendfile method is > >> the worst. > >> > >> When file size is small, The difference in performance is not > >> significant. This is consistent with expectations. > >> > >> > >> > >> Suggested use cases > >> === > >> 1. When there is a need to read large files and system resources > >> are scarce, > >> especially when the size of memory is limited.(GB level) In this > >> scenario, using direct I/O for file reading can even bring > >> performance > >> improvements.(may need patch2-3) > >> 2. For embedded devices with limited RAM, using direct I/O can > >> save system > >> resources and avoid unnecessary data copying. Therefore, even > >> if the > >> performance is lower when read small file, it can still be used > >> effectively. > >> 3. If there is sufficient memory, pinning the page cache of the > >> model files > >> in memory and placing file in the EROFS file system for > >> read-only access > >> maybe better.(EROFS do not support direct I/O) > >> > >> > >> Changlog > >> === > >> v1 [8] > >> v1->v2: > >> Uses the heap flag method for alloc and read instead of adding a new > >> DMA-buf ioctl command. [9] > >> Split the patchset to facilitate review and test. > >> patch 1 implement alloc and read, offer heap flag into it. > >> patch 2-4 offer async read > >> patch 5 can change gather limit. > >> > >> Reference > >> === > >> [1] > >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/0393cf47-3fa2-4e32-8b3d-d5d5bdece298@amd.com/ > >> [2] > >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZpTnzkdolpEwFbtu@phenom.ffwll.local/ > >> [3] > >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240725021349.580574-1-link@vivo.com/ > >> [4] > >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zpf5R7fRZZmEwVuR@infradead.org/ > >> [5] > >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZpiHKY2pGiBuEq4z@infradead.org/ > >> [6] > >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/9b70db2e-e562-4771-be6b-1fa8df19e356@amd.com/ > >> [7] > >> https://patchew.org/linux/20230209102954.528942-1-dhowells@redhat.com/20230… > >> [8] > >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240711074221.459589-1-link@vivo.com/ > >> [9] > >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/5ccbe705-883c-4651-9e66-6b452c414c74@amd.com/ > >> > >> Huan Yang (5): > >> dma-buf: heaps: Introduce DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ_FILE heap flag > >> dma-buf: heaps: Introduce async alloc read ops > >> dma-buf: heaps: support alloc async read file > >> dma-buf: heaps: system_heap alloc support async read > >> dma-buf: heaps: configurable async read gather limit > >> > >> drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c | 552 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > >> drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c | 70 +++- > >> include/linux/dma-heap.h | 53 ++- > >> include/uapi/linux/dma-heap.h | 11 +- > >> 4 files changed, 673 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > >> > >> > >> base-commit: 931a3b3bccc96e7708c82b30b2b5fa82dfd04890 > >

11 months

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Introduce DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ_FILE heap flag

by Christian König

Am 30.07.24 um 13:36 schrieb Huan Yang: >>>> Either drop the whole approach or change udmabuf to do what you >>>> want to do. >>> OK, if so, do I need to send a patch to make dma-buf support sendfile? >> >> Well the udmabuf approach doesn't need to use sendfile, so no. > > Get it, I'll not send again. > > About udmabuf, I test find it can't support larget find read due to > page array alloc. > > I already upload this patch, but do not recive answer. > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240725021349.580574-1-link@vivo.com/ > > Is there anything wrong with my understanding of it? No, that patch was totally fine. Not getting a response is usually something good. In other words when maintainer see something which won't work at all they immediately react, but when nobody complains it usually means you are on the right track. As long as nobody has any good arguments against it I'm happy to take that one upstream through drm-misc-next immediately since it's clearly a stand a lone improvement on it's own. Regards, Christian. > >> >> Regards, >> Christian. >> >>> >>>> >>>> Apart from that I don't see a doable way which can be accepted into >>>> the kernel. >>> Thanks for your suggestion. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Christian. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Christian. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Patch 1 implement it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Patch 2-5 provides an approach for performance improvement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ_FILE heap flag patch enables us to >>>>>>> synchronously read files using direct I/O. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This approach helps to save CPU copying and avoid a certain >>>>>>> degree of >>>>>>> memory thrashing (page cache generation and reclamation) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When dealing with large file sizes, the benefits of this >>>>>>> approach become >>>>>>> particularly significant. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, there are currently some methods that can improve >>>>>>> performance, >>>>>>> not just save system resources: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Due to the large file size, for example, a AI 7B model of around >>>>>>> 3.4GB, the >>>>>>> time taken to allocate DMA-BUF memory will be relatively long. >>>>>>> Waiting >>>>>>> for the allocation to complete before reading the file will add >>>>>>> to the >>>>>>> overall time consumption. Therefore, the total time for DMA-BUF >>>>>>> allocation and file read can be calculated using the formula >>>>>>> T(total) = T(alloc) + T(I/O) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, if we change our approach, we don't necessarily need to >>>>>>> wait >>>>>>> for the DMA-BUF allocation to complete before initiating I/O. In >>>>>>> fact, >>>>>>> during the allocation process, we already hold a portion of the >>>>>>> page, >>>>>>> which means that waiting for subsequent page allocations to >>>>>>> complete >>>>>>> before carrying out file reads is actually unfair to the pages >>>>>>> that have >>>>>>> already been allocated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The allocation of pages is sequential, and the reading of the >>>>>>> file is >>>>>>> also sequential, with the content and size corresponding to the >>>>>>> file. >>>>>>> This means that the memory location for each page, which holds the >>>>>>> content of a specific position in the file, can be determined at >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> time of allocation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, to fully leverage I/O performance, it is best to wait and >>>>>>> gather a certain number of pages before initiating batch >>>>>>> processing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The default gather size is 128MB. So, ever gathered can see as a >>>>>>> file read >>>>>>> work, it maps the gather page to the vmalloc area to obtain a >>>>>>> continuous >>>>>>> virtual address, which is used as a buffer to store the contents >>>>>>> of the >>>>>>> corresponding file. So, if using direct I/O to read a file, the >>>>>>> file >>>>>>> content will be written directly to the corresponding dma-buf >>>>>>> buffer memory >>>>>>> without any additional copying.(compare to pipe buffer.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Consider other ways to read into dma-buf. If we assume reading >>>>>>> after mmap >>>>>>> dma-buf, we need to map the pages of the dma-buf to the user >>>>>>> virtual >>>>>>> address space. Also, udmabuf memfd need do this operations too. >>>>>>> Even if we support sendfile, the file copy also need buffer, you >>>>>>> must >>>>>>> setup it. >>>>>>> So, mapping pages to the vmalloc area does not incur any additional >>>>>>> performance overhead compared to other methods.[6] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Certainly, the administrator can also modify the gather size >>>>>>> through patch5. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The formula for the time taken for system_heap buffer allocation >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> file reading through async_read is as follows: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> T(total) = T(first gather page) + Max(T(remain alloc), T(I/O)) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Compared to the synchronous read: >>>>>>> T(total) = T(alloc) + T(I/O) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the allocation time or I/O time is long, the time difference >>>>>>> will be >>>>>>> covered by the maximum value between the allocation and I/O. The >>>>>>> other >>>>>>> party will be concealed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Therefore, the larger the size of the file that needs to be >>>>>>> read, the >>>>>>> greater the corresponding benefits will be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How to use >>>>>>> === >>>>>>> Consider the current pathway for loading model files into DMA-BUF: >>>>>>> 1. open dma-heap, get heap fd >>>>>>> 2. open file, get file_fd(can't use O_DIRECT) >>>>>>> 3. use file len to allocate dma-buf, get dma-buf fd >>>>>>> 4. mmap dma-buf fd, get vaddr >>>>>>> 5. read(file_fd, vaddr, file_size) into dma-buf pages >>>>>>> 6. share, attach, whatever you want >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Use DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ_FILE JUST a little change: >>>>>>> 1. open dma-heap, get heap fd >>>>>>> 2. open file, get file_fd(buffer/direct) >>>>>>> 3. allocate dma-buf with DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ_FILE heap >>>>>>> flag, set file_fd >>>>>>> instead of len. get dma-buf fd(contains file content) >>>>>>> 4. share, attach, whatever you want >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, test it is easy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How to test >>>>>>> === >>>>>>> The performance comparison will be conducted for the following >>>>>>> scenarios: >>>>>>> 1. normal >>>>>>> 2. udmabuf with [3] patch >>>>>>> 3. sendfile >>>>>>> 4. only patch 1 >>>>>>> 5. patch1 - patch4. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> normal: >>>>>>> 1. open dma-heap, get heap fd >>>>>>> 2. open file, get file_fd(can't use O_DIRECT) >>>>>>> 3. use file len to allocate dma-buf, get dma-buf fd >>>>>>> 4. mmap dma-buf fd, get vaddr >>>>>>> 5. read(file_fd, vaddr, file_size) into dma-buf pages >>>>>>> 6. share, attach, whatever you want >>>>>>> >>>>>>> UDMA-BUF step: >>>>>>> 1. memfd_create >>>>>>> 2. open file(buffer/direct) >>>>>>> 3. udmabuf create >>>>>>> 4. mmap memfd >>>>>>> 5. read file into memfd vaddr >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sendfile step(need suit splice_write/write_iter, just use to >>>>>>> compare): >>>>>>> 1. open dma-heap, get heap fd >>>>>>> 2. open file, get file_fd(buffer/direct) >>>>>>> 3. use file len to allocate dma-buf, get dma-buf fd >>>>>>> 4. sendfile file_fd to dma-buf fd >>>>>>> 6. share, attach, whatever you want >>>>>>> >>>>>>> patch1/patch1-4: >>>>>>> 1. open dma-heap, get heap fd >>>>>>> 2. open file, get file_fd(buffer/direct) >>>>>>> 3. allocate dma-buf with DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ_FILE heap >>>>>>> flag, set file_fd >>>>>>> instead of len. get dma-buf fd(contains file content) >>>>>>> 4. share, attach, whatever you want >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can create a file to test it. Compare the performance gap >>>>>>> between the two. >>>>>>> It is best to compare the differences in file size from KB to MB >>>>>>> to GB. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The following test data will compare the performance differences >>>>>>> between 512KB, >>>>>>> 8MB, 1GB, and 3GB under various scenarios. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Performance Test >>>>>>> === >>>>>>> 12G RAM phone >>>>>>> UFS4.0(the maximum speed is 4GB/s. ), >>>>>>> f2fs >>>>>>> kernel 6.1 with patch[7] (or else, can't support kvec direct >>>>>>> I/O read.) >>>>>>> no memory pressure. >>>>>>> drop_cache is used for each test. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The average of 5 test results: >>>>>>> | scheme-size | 512KB(ns) | 8MB(ns) | 1GB(ns) | >>>>>>> 3GB(ns) | >>>>>>> | ------------------- | ---------- | ---------- | ------------- >>>>>>> | ------------- | >>>>>>> | normal | 2,790,861 | 14,535,784 | 1,520,790,492 >>>>>>> | 3,332,438,754 | >>>>>>> | udmabuf buffer I/O | 1,704,046 | 11,313,476 | 821,348,000 | >>>>>>> 2,108,419,923 | >>>>>>> | sendfile buffer I/O | 3,261,261 | 12,112,292 | 1,565,939,938 >>>>>>> | 3,062,052,984 | >>>>>>> | patch1-4 buffer I/O | 2,064,538 | 10,771,474 | 986,338,800 | >>>>>>> 2,187,570,861 | >>>>>>> | sendfile direct I/O | 12,844,231 | 37,883,938 | 5,110,299,184 >>>>>>> | 9,777,661,077 | >>>>>>> | patch1 direct I/O | 813,215 | 6,962,092 | 2,364,211,877 >>>>>>> | 5,648,897,554 | >>>>>>> | udmabuf direct I/O | 1,289,554 | 8,968,138 | 921,480,784 | >>>>>>> 2,158,305,738 | >>>>>>> | patch1-4 direct I/O | 1,957,661 | 6,581,999 | 520,003,538 | >>>>>>> 1,400,006,107 | >>>>> >>>>> With this test, sendfile can't give a good help base on pipe buffer. >>>>> >>>>> udmabuf is good, but I think our oem driver can't suit it. (And, >>>>> AOSP do not open this feature) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, I am sending this patchset in the hope of further discussion. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, based on the test results: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When the file is large, the patchset has the highest performance. >>>>>>> Compared to normal, patchset is a 50% improvement; >>>>>>> Compared to normal, patch1 only showed a degradation of 41%. >>>>>>> patch1 typical performance breakdown is as follows: >>>>>>> 1. alloc cost 188,802,693 ns >>>>>>> 2. vmap cost 42,491,385 ns >>>>>>> 3. file read cost 4,180,876,702 ns >>>>>>> Therefore, directly performing a single direct I/O read on a >>>>>>> large file >>>>>>> may not be the most optimal way for performance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The performance of direct I/O implemented by the sendfile method >>>>>>> is the worst. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When file size is small, The difference in performance is not >>>>>>> significant. This is consistent with expectations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Suggested use cases >>>>>>> === >>>>>>> 1. When there is a need to read large files and system >>>>>>> resources are scarce, >>>>>>> especially when the size of memory is limited.(GB level) >>>>>>> In this >>>>>>> scenario, using direct I/O for file reading can even bring >>>>>>> performance >>>>>>> improvements.(may need patch2-3) >>>>>>> 2. For embedded devices with limited RAM, using direct I/O >>>>>>> can save system >>>>>>> resources and avoid unnecessary data copying. Therefore, >>>>>>> even if the >>>>>>> performance is lower when read small file, it can still be >>>>>>> used >>>>>>> effectively. >>>>>>> 3. If there is sufficient memory, pinning the page cache of >>>>>>> the model files >>>>>>> in memory and placing file in the EROFS file system for >>>>>>> read-only access >>>>>>> maybe better.(EROFS do not support direct I/O) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Changlog >>>>>>> === >>>>>>> v1 [8] >>>>>>> v1->v2: >>>>>>> Uses the heap flag method for alloc and read instead of >>>>>>> adding a new >>>>>>> DMA-buf ioctl command. [9] >>>>>>> Split the patchset to facilitate review and test. >>>>>>> patch 1 implement alloc and read, offer heap flag into it. >>>>>>> patch 2-4 offer async read >>>>>>> patch 5 can change gather limit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Reference >>>>>>> === >>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/0393cf47-3fa2-4e32-8b3d-d5d5bdece298@amd.com/ >>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZpTnzkdolpEwFbtu@phenom.ffwll.local/ >>>>>>> [3] >>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240725021349.580574-1-link@vivo.com/ >>>>>>> [4] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zpf5R7fRZZmEwVuR@infradead.org/ >>>>>>> [5] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZpiHKY2pGiBuEq4z@infradead.org/ >>>>>>> [6] >>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/9b70db2e-e562-4771-be6b-1fa8df19e356@amd.com/ >>>>>>> [7] >>>>>>> https://patchew.org/linux/20230209102954.528942-1-dhowells@redhat.com/20230… >>>>>>> [8] >>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240711074221.459589-1-link@vivo.com/ >>>>>>> [9] >>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/5ccbe705-883c-4651-9e66-6b452c414c74@amd.com/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Huan Yang (5): >>>>>>> dma-buf: heaps: Introduce DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ_FILE heap flag >>>>>>> dma-buf: heaps: Introduce async alloc read ops >>>>>>> dma-buf: heaps: support alloc async read file >>>>>>> dma-buf: heaps: system_heap alloc support async read >>>>>>> dma-buf: heaps: configurable async read gather limit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c | 552 >>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >>>>>>> drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c | 70 +++- >>>>>>> include/linux/dma-heap.h | 53 ++- >>>>>>> include/uapi/linux/dma-heap.h | 11 +- >>>>>>> 4 files changed, 673 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> base-commit: 931a3b3bccc96e7708c82b30b2b5fa82dfd04890 >>>>>> >>>> >>

11 months

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Introduce DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ_FILE heap flag

by Christian König

Am 30.07.24 um 10:46 schrieb Huan Yang: > > 在 2024/7/30 16:37, Christian König 写道: >> Am 30.07.24 um 10:14 schrieb Huan Yang: >>> 在 2024/7/30 16:03, Christian König 写道: >>>> Am 30.07.24 um 09:57 schrieb Huan Yang: >>>>> Background >>>>> ==== >>>>> Some user may need load file into dma-buf, current way is: >>>>> 1. allocate a dma-buf, get dma-buf fd >>>>> 2. mmap dma-buf fd into user vaddr >>>>> 3. read(file_fd, vaddr, fsz) >>>>> Due to dma-buf user map can't support direct I/O[1], the file read >>>>> must be buffer I/O. >>>>> >>>>> This means that during the process of reading the file into dma-buf, >>>>> page cache needs to be generated, and the corresponding content >>>>> needs to >>>>> be first copied to the page cache before being copied to the dma-buf. >>>>> >>>>> This way worked well when reading relatively small files before, as >>>>> the page cache can cache the file content, thus improving >>>>> performance. >>>>> >>>>> However, there are new challenges currently, especially as AI >>>>> models are >>>>> becoming larger and need to be shared between DMA devices and the CPU >>>>> via dma-buf. >>>>> >>>>> For example, our 7B model file size is around 3.4GB. Using the >>>>> previous would mean generating a total of 3.4GB of page cache >>>>> (even if it will be reclaimed), and also requiring the copying of >>>>> 3.4GB >>>>> of content between page cache and dma-buf. >>>>> >>>>> Due to the limited resources of system memory, files in the >>>>> gigabyte range >>>>> cannot persist in memory indefinitely, so this portion of page >>>>> cache may >>>>> not provide much assistance for subsequent reads. Additionally, the >>>>> existence of page cache will consume additional system resources >>>>> due to >>>>> the extra copying required by the CPU. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore, I think it is necessary for dma-buf to support direct I/O. >>>>> >>>>> However, direct I/O file reads cannot be performed using the buffer >>>>> mmaped by the user space for the dma-buf.[1] >>>>> >>>>> Here are some discussions on implementing direct I/O using dma-buf: >>>>> >>>>> mmap[1] >>>>> --- >>>>> dma-buf never support user map vaddr use of direct I/O. >>>>> >>>>> udmabuf[2] >>>>> --- >>>>> Currently, udmabuf can use the memfd method to read files into >>>>> dma-buf in direct I/O mode. >>>>> >>>>> However, if the size is large, the current udmabuf needs to adjust >>>>> the >>>>> corresponding size_limit(default 64MB). >>>>> But using udmabuf for files at the 3GB level is not a very good >>>>> approach. >>>>> It needs to make some adjustments internally to handle this.[3] Or >>>>> else, >>>>> fail create. >>>>> >>>>> But, it is indeed a viable way to enable dma-buf to support direct >>>>> I/O. >>>>> However, it is necessary to initiate the file read after the >>>>> memory allocation >>>>> is completed, and handle race conditions carefully. >>>>> >>>>> sendfile/splice[4] >>>>> --- >>>>> Another way to enable dma-buf to support direct I/O is by >>>>> implementing >>>>> splice_write/write_iter in the dma-buf file operations (fops) to >>>>> adapt >>>>> to the sendfile method. >>>>> However, the current sendfile/splice calls are based on pipe. When >>>>> using >>>>> direct I/O to read a file, the content needs to be copied to the >>>>> buffer >>>>> allocated by the pipe (default 64KB), and then the dma-buf fops' >>>>> splice_write needs to be called to write the content into the >>>>> dma-buf. >>>>> This approach requires serially reading the content of file pipe size >>>>> into the pipe buffer and then waiting for the dma-buf to be written >>>>> before reading the next one.(The I/O performance is relatively weak >>>>> under direct I/O.) >>>>> Moreover, due to the existence of the pipe buffer, even when using >>>>> direct I/O and not needing to generate additional page cache, >>>>> there still needs to be a CPU copy. >>>>> >>>>> copy_file_range[5] >>>>> --- >>>>> Consider of copy_file_range, It only supports copying files within >>>>> the >>>>> same file system. Similarly, it is not very practical. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So, currently, there is no particularly suitable solution on VFS to >>>>> allow dma-buf to support direct I/O for large file reads. >>>>> >>>>> This patchset provides an idea to complete file reads when >>>>> requesting a >>>>> dma-buf. >>>>> >>>>> Introduce DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ_FILE heap flag >>>>> === >>>>> This patch provides a method to immediately read the file content >>>>> after >>>>> the dma-buf is allocated, and only returns the dma-buf file >>>>> descriptor >>>>> after the file is fully read. >>>>> >>>>> Since the dma-buf file descriptor is not returned, no other thread >>>>> can >>>>> access it except for the current thread, so we don't need to worry >>>>> about >>>>> race conditions. >>>> >>>> That is a completely false assumption. >>> Can you provide a detailed explanation as to why this assumption is >>> incorrect? thanks. >> >> File descriptors can be guessed and is available to userspace as soon >> as dma_buf_fd() is called. >> >> What could potentially work is to call system_heap_allocate() without >> calling dma_buf_fd(), but I'm not sure if you can then make I/O to >> the underlying pages. > > Actually, the dma-buf file descriptor is obtained only after a > successful file read in the code, so there is no issue. > > If you are interested, you can take a look at the > dma_heap_buffer_alloc_and_read function in patch1. > >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Map the dma-buf to the vmalloc area and initiate file reads in kernel >>>>> space, supporting both buffer I/O and direct I/O. >>>>> >>>>> This patch adds the DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ heap_flag for user. >>>>> When a user needs to allocate a dma-buf and read a file, they should >>>>> pass this heap flag. As the size of the file being read is fixed, >>>>> there is no >>>>> need to pass the 'len' parameter. Instead, The file_fd needs to be >>>>> passed to >>>>> indicate to the kernel the file that needs to be read. >>>>> >>>>> The file open flag determines the mode of file reading. >>>>> But, please note that if direct I/O(O_DIRECT) is needed to read >>>>> the file, >>>>> the file size must be page aligned. (with patch 2-5, no need) >>>>> >>>>> Therefore, for the user, len and file_fd are mutually exclusive, >>>>> and they are combined using a union. >>>>> >>>>> Once the user obtains the dma-buf fd, the dma-buf directly >>>>> contains the >>>>> file content. >>>> >>>> And I'm repeating myself, but this is a complete NAK from my side >>>> to this approach. >>>> >>>> We pointed out multiple ways of how to implement this cleanly and >>>> not by hacking functionality into the kernel which absolutely >>>> doesn't belong there. >>> In this patchset, I have provided performance comparisons of each of >>> these methods. Can you please provide more opinions? >> >> Either drop the whole approach or change udmabuf to do what you want >> to do. > OK, if so, do I need to send a patch to make dma-buf support sendfile? Well the udmabuf approach doesn't need to use sendfile, so no. Regards, Christian. > >> >> Apart from that I don't see a doable way which can be accepted into >> the kernel. > Thanks for your suggestion. >> >> Regards, >> Christian. >> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Christian. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Patch 1 implement it. >>>>> >>>>> Patch 2-5 provides an approach for performance improvement. >>>>> >>>>> The DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ_FILE heap flag patch enables us to >>>>> synchronously read files using direct I/O. >>>>> >>>>> This approach helps to save CPU copying and avoid a certain degree of >>>>> memory thrashing (page cache generation and reclamation) >>>>> >>>>> When dealing with large file sizes, the benefits of this approach >>>>> become >>>>> particularly significant. >>>>> >>>>> However, there are currently some methods that can improve >>>>> performance, >>>>> not just save system resources: >>>>> >>>>> Due to the large file size, for example, a AI 7B model of around >>>>> 3.4GB, the >>>>> time taken to allocate DMA-BUF memory will be relatively long. >>>>> Waiting >>>>> for the allocation to complete before reading the file will add to >>>>> the >>>>> overall time consumption. Therefore, the total time for DMA-BUF >>>>> allocation and file read can be calculated using the formula >>>>> T(total) = T(alloc) + T(I/O) >>>>> >>>>> However, if we change our approach, we don't necessarily need to wait >>>>> for the DMA-BUF allocation to complete before initiating I/O. In >>>>> fact, >>>>> during the allocation process, we already hold a portion of the page, >>>>> which means that waiting for subsequent page allocations to complete >>>>> before carrying out file reads is actually unfair to the pages >>>>> that have >>>>> already been allocated. >>>>> >>>>> The allocation of pages is sequential, and the reading of the file is >>>>> also sequential, with the content and size corresponding to the file. >>>>> This means that the memory location for each page, which holds the >>>>> content of a specific position in the file, can be determined at the >>>>> time of allocation. >>>>> >>>>> However, to fully leverage I/O performance, it is best to wait and >>>>> gather a certain number of pages before initiating batch processing. >>>>> >>>>> The default gather size is 128MB. So, ever gathered can see as a >>>>> file read >>>>> work, it maps the gather page to the vmalloc area to obtain a >>>>> continuous >>>>> virtual address, which is used as a buffer to store the contents >>>>> of the >>>>> corresponding file. So, if using direct I/O to read a file, the file >>>>> content will be written directly to the corresponding dma-buf >>>>> buffer memory >>>>> without any additional copying.(compare to pipe buffer.) >>>>> >>>>> Consider other ways to read into dma-buf. If we assume reading >>>>> after mmap >>>>> dma-buf, we need to map the pages of the dma-buf to the user virtual >>>>> address space. Also, udmabuf memfd need do this operations too. >>>>> Even if we support sendfile, the file copy also need buffer, you must >>>>> setup it. >>>>> So, mapping pages to the vmalloc area does not incur any additional >>>>> performance overhead compared to other methods.[6] >>>>> >>>>> Certainly, the administrator can also modify the gather size >>>>> through patch5. >>>>> >>>>> The formula for the time taken for system_heap buffer allocation and >>>>> file reading through async_read is as follows: >>>>> >>>>> T(total) = T(first gather page) + Max(T(remain alloc), T(I/O)) >>>>> >>>>> Compared to the synchronous read: >>>>> T(total) = T(alloc) + T(I/O) >>>>> >>>>> If the allocation time or I/O time is long, the time difference >>>>> will be >>>>> covered by the maximum value between the allocation and I/O. The >>>>> other >>>>> party will be concealed. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore, the larger the size of the file that needs to be read, the >>>>> greater the corresponding benefits will be. >>>>> >>>>> How to use >>>>> === >>>>> Consider the current pathway for loading model files into DMA-BUF: >>>>> 1. open dma-heap, get heap fd >>>>> 2. open file, get file_fd(can't use O_DIRECT) >>>>> 3. use file len to allocate dma-buf, get dma-buf fd >>>>> 4. mmap dma-buf fd, get vaddr >>>>> 5. read(file_fd, vaddr, file_size) into dma-buf pages >>>>> 6. share, attach, whatever you want >>>>> >>>>> Use DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ_FILE JUST a little change: >>>>> 1. open dma-heap, get heap fd >>>>> 2. open file, get file_fd(buffer/direct) >>>>> 3. allocate dma-buf with DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ_FILE heap >>>>> flag, set file_fd >>>>> instead of len. get dma-buf fd(contains file content) >>>>> 4. share, attach, whatever you want >>>>> >>>>> So, test it is easy. >>>>> >>>>> How to test >>>>> === >>>>> The performance comparison will be conducted for the following >>>>> scenarios: >>>>> 1. normal >>>>> 2. udmabuf with [3] patch >>>>> 3. sendfile >>>>> 4. only patch 1 >>>>> 5. patch1 - patch4. >>>>> >>>>> normal: >>>>> 1. open dma-heap, get heap fd >>>>> 2. open file, get file_fd(can't use O_DIRECT) >>>>> 3. use file len to allocate dma-buf, get dma-buf fd >>>>> 4. mmap dma-buf fd, get vaddr >>>>> 5. read(file_fd, vaddr, file_size) into dma-buf pages >>>>> 6. share, attach, whatever you want >>>>> >>>>> UDMA-BUF step: >>>>> 1. memfd_create >>>>> 2. open file(buffer/direct) >>>>> 3. udmabuf create >>>>> 4. mmap memfd >>>>> 5. read file into memfd vaddr >>>>> >>>>> Sendfile step(need suit splice_write/write_iter, just use to >>>>> compare): >>>>> 1. open dma-heap, get heap fd >>>>> 2. open file, get file_fd(buffer/direct) >>>>> 3. use file len to allocate dma-buf, get dma-buf fd >>>>> 4. sendfile file_fd to dma-buf fd >>>>> 6. share, attach, whatever you want >>>>> >>>>> patch1/patch1-4: >>>>> 1. open dma-heap, get heap fd >>>>> 2. open file, get file_fd(buffer/direct) >>>>> 3. allocate dma-buf with DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ_FILE heap >>>>> flag, set file_fd >>>>> instead of len. get dma-buf fd(contains file content) >>>>> 4. share, attach, whatever you want >>>>> >>>>> You can create a file to test it. Compare the performance gap >>>>> between the two. >>>>> It is best to compare the differences in file size from KB to MB >>>>> to GB. >>>>> >>>>> The following test data will compare the performance differences >>>>> between 512KB, >>>>> 8MB, 1GB, and 3GB under various scenarios. >>>>> >>>>> Performance Test >>>>> === >>>>> 12G RAM phone >>>>> UFS4.0(the maximum speed is 4GB/s. ), >>>>> f2fs >>>>> kernel 6.1 with patch[7] (or else, can't support kvec direct >>>>> I/O read.) >>>>> no memory pressure. >>>>> drop_cache is used for each test. >>>>> >>>>> The average of 5 test results: >>>>> | scheme-size | 512KB(ns) | 8MB(ns) | 1GB(ns) | >>>>> 3GB(ns) | >>>>> | ------------------- | ---------- | ---------- | ------------- | >>>>> ------------- | >>>>> | normal | 2,790,861 | 14,535,784 | 1,520,790,492 | >>>>> 3,332,438,754 | >>>>> | udmabuf buffer I/O | 1,704,046 | 11,313,476 | 821,348,000 | >>>>> 2,108,419,923 | >>>>> | sendfile buffer I/O | 3,261,261 | 12,112,292 | 1,565,939,938 | >>>>> 3,062,052,984 | >>>>> | patch1-4 buffer I/O | 2,064,538 | 10,771,474 | 986,338,800 | >>>>> 2,187,570,861 | >>>>> | sendfile direct I/O | 12,844,231 | 37,883,938 | 5,110,299,184 | >>>>> 9,777,661,077 | >>>>> | patch1 direct I/O | 813,215 | 6,962,092 | 2,364,211,877 | >>>>> 5,648,897,554 | >>>>> | udmabuf direct I/O | 1,289,554 | 8,968,138 | 921,480,784 | >>>>> 2,158,305,738 | >>>>> | patch1-4 direct I/O | 1,957,661 | 6,581,999 | 520,003,538 | >>>>> 1,400,006,107 | >>> >>> With this test, sendfile can't give a good help base on pipe buffer. >>> >>> udmabuf is good, but I think our oem driver can't suit it. (And, >>> AOSP do not open this feature) >>> >>> >>> Anyway, I am sending this patchset in the hope of further discussion. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>>>> >>>>> So, based on the test results: >>>>> >>>>> When the file is large, the patchset has the highest performance. >>>>> Compared to normal, patchset is a 50% improvement; >>>>> Compared to normal, patch1 only showed a degradation of 41%. >>>>> patch1 typical performance breakdown is as follows: >>>>> 1. alloc cost 188,802,693 ns >>>>> 2. vmap cost 42,491,385 ns >>>>> 3. file read cost 4,180,876,702 ns >>>>> Therefore, directly performing a single direct I/O read on a large >>>>> file >>>>> may not be the most optimal way for performance. >>>>> >>>>> The performance of direct I/O implemented by the sendfile method >>>>> is the worst. >>>>> >>>>> When file size is small, The difference in performance is not >>>>> significant. This is consistent with expectations. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Suggested use cases >>>>> === >>>>> 1. When there is a need to read large files and system >>>>> resources are scarce, >>>>> especially when the size of memory is limited.(GB level) In >>>>> this >>>>> scenario, using direct I/O for file reading can even bring >>>>> performance >>>>> improvements.(may need patch2-3) >>>>> 2. For embedded devices with limited RAM, using direct I/O can >>>>> save system >>>>> resources and avoid unnecessary data copying. Therefore, >>>>> even if the >>>>> performance is lower when read small file, it can still be used >>>>> effectively. >>>>> 3. If there is sufficient memory, pinning the page cache of the >>>>> model files >>>>> in memory and placing file in the EROFS file system for >>>>> read-only access >>>>> maybe better.(EROFS do not support direct I/O) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Changlog >>>>> === >>>>> v1 [8] >>>>> v1->v2: >>>>> Uses the heap flag method for alloc and read instead of adding >>>>> a new >>>>> DMA-buf ioctl command. [9] >>>>> Split the patchset to facilitate review and test. >>>>> patch 1 implement alloc and read, offer heap flag into it. >>>>> patch 2-4 offer async read >>>>> patch 5 can change gather limit. >>>>> >>>>> Reference >>>>> === >>>>> [1] >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/0393cf47-3fa2-4e32-8b3d-d5d5bdece298@amd.com/ >>>>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZpTnzkdolpEwFbtu@phenom.ffwll.local/ >>>>> [3] >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240725021349.580574-1-link@vivo.com/ >>>>> [4] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zpf5R7fRZZmEwVuR@infradead.org/ >>>>> [5] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZpiHKY2pGiBuEq4z@infradead.org/ >>>>> [6] >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/9b70db2e-e562-4771-be6b-1fa8df19e356@amd.com/ >>>>> [7] >>>>> https://patchew.org/linux/20230209102954.528942-1-dhowells@redhat.com/20230… >>>>> [8] >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240711074221.459589-1-link@vivo.com/ >>>>> [9] >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/5ccbe705-883c-4651-9e66-6b452c414c74@amd.com/ >>>>> >>>>> Huan Yang (5): >>>>> dma-buf: heaps: Introduce DMA_HEAP_ALLOC_AND_READ_FILE heap flag >>>>> dma-buf: heaps: Introduce async alloc read ops >>>>> dma-buf: heaps: support alloc async read file >>>>> dma-buf: heaps: system_heap alloc support async read >>>>> dma-buf: heaps: configurable async read gather limit >>>>> >>>>> drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c | 552 >>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >>>>> drivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c | 70 +++- >>>>> include/linux/dma-heap.h | 53 ++- >>>>> include/uapi/linux/dma-heap.h | 11 +- >>>>> 4 files changed, 673 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> base-commit: 931a3b3bccc96e7708c82b30b2b5fa82dfd04890 >>>> >>

11 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

Linaro-mm-sig