Am 04.03.24 um 15:29 schrieb Paul Cercueil:
Le lundi 04 mars 2024 à 14:41 +0100, Christian König a écrit :
Trying to send this once more as text only.
Am 04.03.24 um 14:40 schrieb Christian König:
Am 04.03.24 um 14:28 schrieb Nuno Sá:
On Mon, 2024-03-04 at 13:44 +0100, Christian König wrote:
Am 23.02.24 um 13:14 schrieb Nuno Sa:
From: Paul Cercueilpaul@crapouillou.net
Add the necessary infrastructure to the IIO core to support a new optional DMABUF based interface.
With this new interface, DMABUF objects (externally created) can be attached to a IIO buffer, and subsequently used for data transfer.
A userspace application can then use this interface to share DMABUF objects between several interfaces, allowing it to transfer data in a zero-copy fashion, for instance between IIO and the USB stack.
The userspace application can also memory-map the DMABUF objects, and access the sample data directly. The advantage of doing this vs. the read() interface is that it avoids an extra copy of the data between the kernel and userspace. This is particularly userful for high- speed devices which produce several megabytes or even gigabytes of data per second.
As part of the interface, 3 new IOCTLs have been added:
IIO_BUFFER_DMABUF_ATTACH_IOCTL(int fd): Attach the DMABUF object identified by the given file descriptor to the buffer.
IIO_BUFFER_DMABUF_DETACH_IOCTL(int fd): Detach the DMABUF object identified by the given file descriptor from the buffer. Note that closing the IIO buffer's file descriptor will automatically detach all previously attached DMABUF objects.
IIO_BUFFER_DMABUF_ENQUEUE_IOCTL(struct iio_dmabuf *): Request a data transfer to/from the given DMABUF object. Its file descriptor, as well as the transfer size and flags are provided in the "iio_dmabuf" structure.
These three IOCTLs have to be performed on the IIO buffer's file descriptor, obtained using the IIO_BUFFER_GET_FD_IOCTL() ioctl.
A few nit picks and one bug below, apart from that looks good to me.
Hi Christian,
Thanks for looking at it. I'll just add some comment on the bug below and for the other stuff I hope Paul is already able to step in and reply to it. My assumption (which seems to be wrong) is that the dmabuf bits should be already good to go as they should be pretty similar to the USB part of it.
...
- if (dma_to_ram) {
/** If we're writing to the DMABUF, make surewe don't have
* readers*/retl = dma_resv_wait_timeout(dmabuf->resv,DMA_RESV_USAGE_READ, true,
timeout);if (retl == 0)retl = -EBUSY;if (retl < 0) {ret = (int)retl;goto err_resv_unlock;}- }
- if (buffer->access->lock_queue)
buffer->access->lock_queue(buffer);- ret = dma_resv_reserve_fences(dmabuf->resv, 1);
- if (ret)
goto err_queue_unlock;- dma_resv_add_fence(dmabuf->resv, &fence->base,
dma_resv_usage_rw(dma_to_ram));That is incorrect use of the function dma_resv_usage_rw(). That function is for retrieving fences and not adding them.
See the function implementation and comments, when you use it like this you get exactly what you don't want.
Does that mean that the USB stuff [1] is also wrong?
ee/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_fs.c?h=usb-next#n1669
Yes, that's broken as well. The dma_resv_usage_rw() function is supposed to be used while retrieving fences.
Ok, I'll fix it there too.
In other words your "if (dma_to_ram) ..." above is incorrect as well. That one should look more like this: /* * Writes needs to wait for other writes and reads, but readers only have to wait for writers. */
retl = dma_resv_wait_timeout(dmabuf->resv, dma_resv_usage_rw(dma_to_ram), timeout);
When writing the DMABUF, the USB code (and the IIO code above) will wait for writers/readers, but it does so through two consecutive calls to dma_resv_wait_timeout (because I did not know the proper usage - I thought I had to check both manually).
Yeah, see the documentation on the dma_resv_usage enum. Basically you have KERNEL>WRITE>READ>BOOKKEEP.
When waiting for READ you automatically wait for WRITE and KERNEL as well. So no need for two calls to the wait function.
If you have any idea how to improve the documentation feel free to suggest, it's certainly not obvious how that works :)
Cheers, Christian.
So this code block should technically be correct; but I'll update this code nonetheless.
Regards, Christian.
Cheers, -Paul