Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-137333-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211113062222.3743909-1-jay.xu@rock-chips.com>
 <1da5cdf0-ccb8-3740-cf96-794c4d5b2eb4@amd.com> <3175d41a-fc44-4741-91ac-005c8f21abb8@vivo.com>
 <9e6f1f52-db49-43bb-a0c2-b0ad12c28aa1@amd.com> <5c7ac24c-79fa-45fc-a4fd-5b8fc77a741b@vivo.com>
In-Reply-To: <5c7ac24c-79fa-45fc-a4fd-5b8fc77a741b@vivo.com>
From: "T.J. Mercier" <tjmercier@google.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 09:37:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CABdmKX1OZ9yT3YQA9e7JzKND9wfiL-hnf87Q6v9pwtnAeLHrdA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: add DMA_BUF_IOCTL_SYNC_PARTIAL support
To: Rong Qianfeng <11065417@vivo.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=C3=B6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>, 
	Rong Qianfeng <rongqianfeng@vivo.com>, Jianqun Xu <jay.xu@rock-chips.com>, sumit.semwal@linaro.org, 
	pekka.paalanen@collabora.com, daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch, jason@jlekstrand.net, 
	linux-media@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, 
	linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 12:34=E2=80=AFAM Rong Qianfeng <11065417@vivo.com> w=
rote:
>
>
> =E5=9C=A8 2024/4/8 15:58, Christian K=C3=B6nig =E5=86=99=E9=81=93:
> > Am 07.04.24 um 09:50 schrieb Rong Qianfeng:
> >> [SNIP]
> >>> Am 13.11.21 um 07:22 schrieb Jianqun Xu:
> >>>> Add DMA_BUF_IOCTL_SYNC_PARTIAL support for user to sync dma-buf with
> >>>> offset and len.
> >>>
> >>> You have not given an use case for this so it is a bit hard to
> >>> review. And from the existing use cases I don't see why this should
> >>> be necessary.
> >>>
> >>> Even worse from the existing backend implementation I don't even see
> >>> how drivers should be able to fulfill this semantics.
> >>>
> >>> Please explain further,
> >>> Christian.
> >> Here is a practical case:
> >> The user space can allocate a large chunk of dma-buf for
> >> self-management, used as a shared memory pool.
> >> Small dma-buf can be allocated from this shared memory pool and
> >> released back to it after use, thus improving the speed of dma-buf
> >> allocation and release.
> >> Additionally, custom functionalities such as memory statistics and
> >> boundary checking can be implemented in the user space.
> >> Of course, the above-mentioned functionalities require the
> >> implementation of a partial cache sync interface.
> >
> > Well that is obvious, but where is the code doing that?
> >
> > You can't send out code without an actual user of it. That will
> > obviously be rejected.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Christian.
>
> In fact, we have already used the user-level dma-buf memory pool in the
> camera shooting scenario on the phone.
>
>  From the test results, The execution time of the photo shooting
> algorithm has been reduced from 3.8s to 3s.
>
For phones, the (out of tree) Android version of the system heap has a
page pool connected to a shrinker. That allows you to skip page
allocation without fully pinning the memory like you get when
allocating a dma-buf that's way larger than necessary. If it's for a
camera maybe you need physically contiguous memory, but it's also
possible to set that up.

https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common/+/refs/heads/android14-6.1/d=
rivers/dma-buf/heaps/system_heap.c#377


> To be honest, I didn't understand your concern "...how drivers should be
> able to fulfill this semantics." Can you please help explain it in more
> detail?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rong Qianfeng.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Rong Qianfeng.
> >
>