Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-25962-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Message-ID: <94e9f612-5daf-414a-a8b9-26330e697884@xs4all.nl>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 13:21:19 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 4/8] media: core: Add bitmap manage bufs array entries
Content-Language: en-US, nl
To: Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@collabora.com>, mchehab@kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
 kernel@collabora.com
References: <20231215090813.15610-1-benjamin.gaignard@collabora.com>
 <20231215090813.15610-5-benjamin.gaignard@collabora.com>
From: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>
Autocrypt: addr=hverkuil@xs4all.nl; keydata=
 xsFNBFQ84W0BEAC7EF1iL4s3tY8cRTVkJT/297h0Hz0ypA+ByVM4CdU9sN6ua/YoFlr9k0K4
 BFUlg7JzJoUuRbKxkYb8mmqOe722j7N3HO8+ofnio5cAP5W0WwDpM0kM84BeHU0aPSTsWiGR
 yw55SOK2JBSq7hueotWLfJLobMWhQii0Zd83hGT9SIt9uHaHjgwmtTH7MSTIiaY6N14nw2Ud
 C6Uykc1va0Wqqc2ov5ihgk/2k2SKa02ookQI3e79laOrbZl5BOXNKR9LguuOZdX4XYR3Zi6/
 BsJ7pVCK9xkiVf8svlEl94IHb+sa1KrlgGv3fn5xgzDw8Z222TfFceDL/2EzUyTdWc4GaPMC
 E/c1B4UOle6ZHg02+I8tZicjzj5+yffv1lB5A1btG+AmoZrgf0X2O1B96fqgHx8w9PIpVERN
 YsmkfxvhfP3MO3oHh8UY1OLKdlKamMneCLk2up1Zlli347KMjHAVjBAiy8qOguKF9k7HOjif
 JCLYTkggrRiEiE1xg4tblBNj8WGyKH+u/hwwwBqCd/Px2HvhAsJQ7DwuuB3vBAp845BJYUU3
 06kRihFqbO0vEt4QmcQDcbWINeZ2zX5TK7QQ91ldHdqJn6MhXulPKcM8tCkdD8YNXXKyKqNl
 UVqXnarz8m2JCbHgjEkUlAJCNd6m3pfESLZwSWsLYL49R5yxIwARAQABzSFIYW5zIFZlcmt1
 aWwgPGh2ZXJrdWlsQHhzNGFsbC5ubD7CwZUEEwECACgFAlQ84W0CGwMFCRLMAwAGCwkIBwMC
 BhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAACEJEL0tYUhmFDtMFiEEBSzee8IVBTtonxvKvS1hSGYUO0wT
 7w//frEmPBAwu3OdvAk9VDkH7X+7RcFpiuUcJxs3Xl6jpaA+SdwtZra6W1uMrs2RW8eXXiq/
 80HXJtYnal1Y8MKUBoUVhT/+5+KcMyfVQK3VFRHnNxCmC9HZV+qdyxAGwIscUd4hSlweuU6L
 6tI7Dls6NzKRSTFbbGNZCRgl8OrF01TBH+CZrcFIoDgpcJA5Pw84mxo+wd2BZjPA4TNyq1od
 +slSRbDqFug1EqQaMVtUOdgaUgdlmjV0+GfBHoyCGedDE0knv+tRb8v5gNgv7M3hJO3Nrl+O
 OJVoiW0G6OWVyq92NNCKJeDy8XCB1yHCKpBd4evO2bkJNV9xcgHtLrVqozqxZAiCRKN1elWF
 1fyG8KNquqItYedUr+wZZacqW+uzpVr9pZmUqpVCk9s92fzTzDZcGAxnyqkaO2QTgdhPJT2m
 wpG2UwIKzzi13tmwakY7OAbXm76bGWVZCO3QTHVnNV8ku9wgeMc/ZGSLUT8hMDZlwEsW7u/D
 qt+NlTKiOIQsSW7u7h3SFm7sMQo03X/taK9PJhS2BhhgnXg8mOa6U+yNaJy+eU0Lf5hEUiDC
 vDOI5x++LD3pdrJVr/6ZB0Qg3/YzZ0dk+phQ+KlP6HyeO4LG662toMbFbeLcBjcC/ceEclII
 90QNEFSZKM6NVloM+NaZRYVO3ApxWkFu+1mrVTXOwU0EVDzhbQEQANzLiI6gHkIhBQKeQaYs
 p2SSqF9c++9LOy5x6nbQ4s0X3oTKaMGfBZuiKkkU6NnHCSa0Az5ScRWLaRGu1PzjgcVwzl5O
 sDawR1BtOG/XoPRNB2351PRp++W8TWo2viYYY0uJHKFHML+ku9q0P+NkdTzFGJLP+hn7x0RT
 DMbhKTHO3H2xJz5TXNE9zTJuIfGAz3ShDpijvzYieY330BzZYfpgvCllDVM5E4XgfF4F/N90
 wWKu50fMA01ufwu+99GEwTFVG2az5T9SXd7vfSgRSkzXy7hcnxj4IhOfM6Ts85/BjMeIpeqy
 TDdsuetBgX9DMMWxMWl7BLeiMzMGrfkJ4tvlof0sVjurXibTibZyfyGR2ricg8iTbHyFaAzX
 2uFVoZaPxrp7udDfQ96sfz0hesF9Zi8d7NnNnMYbUmUtaS083L/l2EDKvCIkhSjd48XF+aO8
 VhrCfbXWpGRaLcY/gxi2TXRYG9xCa7PINgz9SyO34sL6TeFPSZn4bPQV5O1j85Dj4jBecB1k
 z2arzwlWWKMZUbR04HTeAuuvYvCKEMnfW3ABzdonh70QdqJbpQGfAF2p4/iCETKWuqefiOYn
 pR8PqoQA1DYv3t7y9DIN5Jw/8Oj5wOeEybw6vTMB0rrnx+JaXvxeHSlFzHiD6il/ChDDkJ9J
 /ejCHUQIl40wLSDRABEBAAHCwXwEGAECAA8FAlQ84W0CGwwFCRLMAwAAIQkQvS1hSGYUO0wW
 IQQFLN57whUFO2ifG8q9LWFIZhQ7TA1WD/9yxJvQrpf6LcNrr8uMlQWCg2iz2q1LGt1Itkuu
 KaavEF9nqHmoqhSfZeAIKAPn6xuYbGxXDrpN7dXCOH92fscLodZqZtK5FtbLvO572EPfxneY
 UT7JzDc/5LT9cFFugTMOhq1BG62vUm/F6V91+unyp4dRlyryAeqEuISykhvjZCVHk/woaMZv
 c1Dm4Uvkv0Ilelt3Pb9J7zhcx6sm5T7v16VceF96jG61bnJ2GFS+QZerZp3PY27XgtPxRxYj
 AmFUeF486PHx/2Yi4u1rQpIpC5inPxIgR1+ZFvQrAV36SvLFfuMhyCAxV6WBlQc85ArOiQZB
 Wm7L0repwr7zEJFEkdy8C81WRhMdPvHkAIh3RoY1SGcdB7rB3wCzfYkAuCBqaF7Zgfw8xkad
 KEiQTexRbM1sc/I8ACpla3N26SfQwrfg6V7TIoweP0RwDrcf5PVvwSWsRQp2LxFCkwnCXOra
 gYmkrmv0duG1FStpY+IIQn1TOkuXrciTVfZY1cZD0aVxwlxXBnUNZZNslldvXFtndxR0SFat
 sflovhDxKyhFwXOP0Rv8H378/+14TaykknRBIKEc0+lcr+EMOSUR5eg4aURb8Gc3Uc7fgQ6q
 UssTXzHPyj1hAyDpfu8DzAwlh4kKFTodxSsKAjI45SLjadSc94/5Gy8645Y1KgBzBPTH7Q==
In-Reply-To: <20231215090813.15610-5-benjamin.gaignard@collabora.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 15/12/2023 10:08, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
> Add a bitmap field to know which of bufs array entries are
> used or not.
> Remove no more used num_buffers field from queue structure.
> Use bitmap_find_next_zero_area() to find the first possible
> range when creating new buffers to fill the gaps.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@collabora.com>
> ---
>  .../media/common/videobuf2/videobuf2-core.c   | 37 ++++++++++++++++---
>  include/media/videobuf2-core.h                | 17 +++++----
>  2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/media/common/videobuf2/videobuf2-core.c b/drivers/media/common/videobuf2/videobuf2-core.c
> index cd2b9e51b9b0..9509535a980c 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/common/videobuf2/videobuf2-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/common/videobuf2/videobuf2-core.c
> @@ -421,11 +421,12 @@ static void init_buffer_cache_hints(struct vb2_queue *q, struct vb2_buffer *vb)
>   */
>  static void vb2_queue_add_buffer(struct vb2_queue *q, struct vb2_buffer *vb, unsigned int index)
>  {
> -	WARN_ON(index >= q->max_num_buffers || q->bufs[index] || vb->vb2_queue);
> +	WARN_ON(index >= q->max_num_buffers || test_bit(index, q->bufs_bitmap) || vb->vb2_queue);
>  
>  	q->bufs[index] = vb;
>  	vb->index = index;
>  	vb->vb2_queue = q;
> +	set_bit(index, q->bufs_bitmap);
>  }
>  
>  /**
> @@ -434,6 +435,7 @@ static void vb2_queue_add_buffer(struct vb2_queue *q, struct vb2_buffer *vb, uns
>   */
>  static void vb2_queue_remove_buffer(struct vb2_buffer *vb)
>  {
> +	clear_bit(vb->index, vb->vb2_queue->bufs_bitmap);
>  	vb->vb2_queue->bufs[vb->index] = NULL;
>  	vb->vb2_queue = NULL;
>  }
> @@ -462,7 +464,8 @@ static int __vb2_queue_alloc(struct vb2_queue *q, enum vb2_memory memory,
>  	num_buffers = min_t(unsigned int, num_buffers,
>  			    q->max_num_buffers - vb2_get_num_buffers(q));
>  
> -	index = vb2_get_num_buffers(q);
> +	index = bitmap_find_next_zero_area(q->bufs_bitmap, q->max_num_buffers,
> +					   0, num_buffers, 0);

Shouldn't this check if this call fails to find an area of 'num_buffers' 0-bits?
Or, alternatively, keep reducing num_buffers until it finds a free range. I'm
not sure what is best.

>  
>  	*first_index = index;
>  
> @@ -664,7 +667,6 @@ static void __vb2_queue_free(struct vb2_queue *q, unsigned int buffers)
>  		kfree(vb);
>  	}
>  
> -	q->num_buffers -= buffers;
>  	if (!vb2_get_num_buffers(q)) {
>  		q->memory = VB2_MEMORY_UNKNOWN;
>  		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&q->queued_list);
> @@ -882,6 +884,14 @@ int vb2_core_reqbufs(struct vb2_queue *q, enum vb2_memory memory,
>  		q->bufs = kcalloc(q->max_num_buffers, sizeof(*q->bufs), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!q->bufs)
>  		ret = -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	if (!q->bufs_bitmap)
> +		q->bufs_bitmap = bitmap_zalloc(q->max_num_buffers, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!q->bufs_bitmap) {
> +		ret = -ENOMEM;
> +		kfree(q->bufs);
> +		q->bufs = NULL;
> +	}
>  	q->memory = memory;
>  	mutex_unlock(&q->mmap_lock);
>  	if (ret)
> @@ -951,7 +961,6 @@ int vb2_core_reqbufs(struct vb2_queue *q, enum vb2_memory memory,
>  	}
>  
>  	mutex_lock(&q->mmap_lock);
> -	q->num_buffers = allocated_buffers;
>  
>  	if (ret < 0) {
>  		/*
> @@ -978,6 +987,10 @@ int vb2_core_reqbufs(struct vb2_queue *q, enum vb2_memory memory,
>  	mutex_lock(&q->mmap_lock);
>  	q->memory = VB2_MEMORY_UNKNOWN;
>  	mutex_unlock(&q->mmap_lock);
> +	kfree(q->bufs);
> +	q->bufs = NULL;
> +	bitmap_free(q->bufs_bitmap);
> +	q->bufs_bitmap = NULL;
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vb2_core_reqbufs);
> @@ -1014,9 +1027,19 @@ int vb2_core_create_bufs(struct vb2_queue *q, enum vb2_memory memory,
>  		q->memory = memory;
>  		if (!q->bufs)
>  			q->bufs = kcalloc(q->max_num_buffers, sizeof(*q->bufs), GFP_KERNEL);
> -		if (!q->bufs)
> +		if (!q->bufs) {
>  			ret = -ENOMEM;
> +			goto unlock;
> +		}
> +		if (!q->bufs_bitmap)
> +			q->bufs_bitmap = bitmap_zalloc(q->max_num_buffers, GFP_KERNEL);
> +		if (!q->bufs_bitmap) {
> +			ret = -ENOMEM;
> +			kfree(q->bufs);
> +			q->bufs = NULL;
> +		}

The same code is used in reqbufs and create_bufs, so perhaps creating a helper
function is better.

>  		mutex_unlock(&q->mmap_lock);
> +unlock:
>  		if (ret)
>  			return ret;
>  		q->waiting_for_buffers = !q->is_output;
> @@ -1078,7 +1101,6 @@ int vb2_core_create_bufs(struct vb2_queue *q, enum vb2_memory memory,
>  	}
>  
>  	mutex_lock(&q->mmap_lock);
> -	q->num_buffers += allocated_buffers;
>  
>  	if (ret < 0) {
>  		/*
> @@ -2567,6 +2589,9 @@ void vb2_core_queue_release(struct vb2_queue *q)
>  	__vb2_queue_free(q, vb2_get_num_buffers(q));
>  	kfree(q->bufs);
>  	q->bufs = NULL;
> +	bitmap_free(q->bufs_bitmap);
> +	q->bufs_bitmap = NULL;
> +

And perhaps also a helper function to free the memory.

>  	mutex_unlock(&q->mmap_lock);
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vb2_core_queue_release);
> diff --git a/include/media/videobuf2-core.h b/include/media/videobuf2-core.h
> index 607f2ba7a905..e4c1fc7ae82f 100644
> --- a/include/media/videobuf2-core.h
> +++ b/include/media/videobuf2-core.h
> @@ -346,8 +346,8 @@ struct vb2_buffer {
>   *			describes the requested number of planes and sizes\[\]
>   *			contains the requested plane sizes. In this case
>   *			\*num_buffers are being allocated additionally to
> - *			q->num_buffers. If either \*num_planes or the requested
> - *			sizes are invalid callback must return %-EINVAL.
> + *			the buffers already in the queue. If either \*num_planes

already in the queue -> already allocated

> + *			or the requested sizes are invalid callback must return %-EINVAL.
>   * @wait_prepare:	release any locks taken while calling vb2 functions;
>   *			it is called before an ioctl needs to wait for a new
>   *			buffer to arrive; required to avoid a deadlock in
> @@ -572,7 +572,7 @@ struct vb2_buf_ops {
>   * @memory:	current memory type used
>   * @dma_dir:	DMA mapping direction.
>   * @bufs:	videobuf2 buffer structures
> - * @num_buffers: number of allocated/used buffers
> + * @bufs_bitmap: bitmap tracking whether each bufs[] entry is used
>   * @max_num_buffers: upper limit of number of allocated/used buffers.
>   *		     If set to 0 v4l2 core will change it VB2_MAX_FRAME
>   *		     for backward compatibility.
> @@ -639,7 +639,7 @@ struct vb2_queue {
>  	unsigned int			memory;
>  	enum dma_data_direction		dma_dir;
>  	struct vb2_buffer		**bufs;
> -	unsigned int			num_buffers;
> +	unsigned long			*bufs_bitmap;
>  	unsigned int			max_num_buffers;
>  
>  	struct list_head		queued_list;
> @@ -1168,7 +1168,10 @@ static inline bool vb2_fileio_is_active(struct vb2_queue *q)
>   */
>  static inline unsigned int vb2_get_num_buffers(struct vb2_queue *q)
>  {
> -	return q->num_buffers;
> +	if (!q->bufs_bitmap)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	return bitmap_weight(q->bufs_bitmap, q->max_num_buffers);

I'd invert the test:

	if (q->bufs_bitmap)
		return bitmap_weight(q->bufs_bitmap, q->max_num_buffers);
	return 0;

It's a little bit easier to read.

>  }
>  
>  /**
> @@ -1271,13 +1274,13 @@ static inline void vb2_clear_last_buffer_dequeued(struct vb2_queue *q)
>  static inline struct vb2_buffer *vb2_get_buffer(struct vb2_queue *q,
>  						unsigned int index)
>  {
> -	if (!q->bufs)
> +	if (!q->bufs_bitmap)

Can you ever have q->bufs set, but not q->bufs_bitmap?

I think the original check is just fine.

It is probably a good idea to perhaps clarify this in the @bufs documentation:
if it is non-NULL, then bufs_bitmap is also non-NULL.

And ensure that where you allocate and assign these fields that bufs_bitmap
is always non-NULL when assigning q->bufs. Then it is enough to just test
q->bufs to be certain both bufs and bufs_bitmap are non-NULL.

>  		return NULL;
>  
>  	if (index >= q->max_num_buffers)
>  		return NULL;
>  
> -	if (index < q->num_buffers)
> +	if (test_bit(index, q->bufs_bitmap))
>  		return q->bufs[index];
>  	return NULL;
>  }

Adding support for deleting buffers also causes a odd change in behavior
of CREATE_BUFS w.r.t. the index field of struct v4l2_create_buffers:
when adding new buffers, the index field is indeed the starting buffer index,
as per the documentation. But if count == 0, then the index field returns
the total number of allocated buffers, which is really something different.

I think the documentation of VIDIOC_CREATE_BUFS should be updated to clearly
state that if count == 0, then 'index' is set to the total number of
allocated buffers.

I really hate VIDIOC_CREATE_BUFS, and I do plan an RFC with a proposal for
an alternative API.

Regards,

	Hans