Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210427131344.139443-1-senozhatsky@chromium.org>
 <20210427131344.139443-9-senozhatsky@chromium.org> <10a0903a-e295-5cba-683a-1eb89a0804ed@xs4all.nl>
 <YMsAIVs7G2hUDR2F@google.com> <20210617080107.GA1422@lst.de>
 <CAAFQd5DiPstn-s+yQM3iMd=G9oaag39qCyX483a7-Jrn=gxWCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210617085233.GA4702@lst.de> <CAAFQd5DqK2gSTGjfo-vahXwMzzO9gv26cY=vV6urn3viDLPE7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210617100656.GA11107@lst.de> <CAAFQd5CgLDkJ3t1aU2PRcGu6cGFjLXOnvMqDg62Z7Zuc8ABVHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210618042526.GA17794@lst.de>
In-Reply-To: <20210618042526.GA17794@lst.de>
From:   Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org>
Date:   Fri, 18 Jun 2021 13:44:08 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAFQd5Bt9TJ87Yk5ZpqTqrX9rmP0Uq8VNwx_rwFHakWP850Axw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 8/8] videobuf2: handle non-contiguous DMA allocations
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
        Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl>,
        Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 1:25 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 12:21:33PM +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 06:40:58PM +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > > > Sorry, I meant dma_alloc_attrs() and yes, it's indeed a misnomer. Our
> > > > use case basically has no need for the additional coherent mapping, so
> > > > creation of it can be skipped to save some vmalloc space. (Yes, it
> > > > probably only matters for 32-bit architectures.)
> > >
> > > Yes, that is the normal use case, and it is solved by using
> > > dma_alloc_noncoherent or dma_alloc_noncontigous without the vmap
> > > step.
> >
> > True, silly me. Probably not enough coffee at the time I was looking at it.
> >
> > With that, wouldn't it be possible to completely get rid of
> > dma_alloc_{coherent,attrs}() and use dma_alloc_noncontiguous() +
> > optional kernel and/or userspace mapping helper everywhere? (Possibly
> > renaming it to something as simple as dma_alloc().
>
> Well, dma_alloc_coherent users want a non-cached mapping.  And while
> some architectures provide that using a vmap with "uncached" bits in the
> PTE to provide that, this:
>
>  a) is not possibly everywhere
>  b) even where possible is not always the best idea as it creates mappings
>     with differnet cachability bets

I think this could be addressed by having a dma_vmap() helper that
does the right thing, whether it's vmap() or dma_common_pages_remap()
as appropriate. Or would be this still insufficient for some
architectures?

>
> And even without that dma_alloc_noncoherent causes less overhead than
> dma_alloc_noncontigious if you only need a single contiguous range.
>

Given that behind the scenes dma_alloc_noncontiguous() would also just
call __dma_alloc_pages() for devices that need contiguous pages, would
the overhead be basically the creation of a single-entry sgtable?

> So while I'm happy we have something useful for more complex drivers like
> v4l I think the simple dma_alloc_coherent API, including some of the less
> crazy flags for dma_alloc_attrs is the right thing to use for more than
> 90% of the use cases.

One thing to take into account here is that many drivers use the
existing "simple" way, just because there wasn't a viable alternative
to do something better. Agreed, though, that we shouldn't optimize for
the rare cases.

Best regards,
Tomasz