diff mbox series

[1/1] eal/linux: do not create user mem map repeatedly when it exists

Message ID cdb0d6482a5c3a5d7d23625d230d9ef41d657320.1594903876.git.wangyunjian@huawei.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded, archived
Delegated to: David Marchand
Headers
Series [1/1] eal/linux: do not create user mem map repeatedly when it exists |

Checks

Context Check Description
ci/checkpatch success coding style OK
ci/Intel-compilation success Compilation OK
ci/iol-mellanox-Performance success Performance Testing PASS
ci/travis-robot success Travis build: passed
ci/iol-broadcom-Performance success Performance Testing PASS
ci/iol-intel-Performance success Performance Testing PASS
ci/iol-testing success Testing PASS

Commit Message

Yunjian Wang July 16, 2020, 1:38 p.m. UTC 
  From: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>

Currently, we will create new user mem map entry for the same memory
segment, but in fact it has already been added to the user mem maps.
It's not necessary to create it twice.

Fixes: 0cbce3a167f1 ("vfio: skip DMA map failure if already mapped")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
---
 lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

Comments

Burakov, Anatoly July 17, 2020, 2:19 p.m. UTC | #1 
On 16-Jul-20 2:38 PM, wangyunjian wrote:
> From: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
> 
> Currently, we will create new user mem map entry for the same memory
> segment, but in fact it has already been added to the user mem maps.
> It's not necessary to create it twice.
> 
> Fixes: 0cbce3a167f1 ("vfio: skip DMA map failure if already mapped")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
> ---
>   lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c | 7 +++++++
>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
> index abb12a354..d8a8c39ab 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
> @@ -1828,6 +1828,13 @@ container_dma_map(struct vfio_config *vfio_cfg, uint64_t vaddr, uint64_t iova,
>   		ret = -1;
>   		goto out;
>   	}
> +
> +	/* we don't need create new user mem map entry
> +	 * for the same memory segment.
> +	 */
> +	if (errno == EBUSY || errno == EEXIST)
> +		goto out;
> +

I'm not sure i understand this patch. If we get errno, the call has 
failed, which means we're doing "goto out" from a few lines above. Am i 
missing something here?

>   	/* create new user mem map entry */
>   	new_map = &user_mem_maps->maps[user_mem_maps->n_maps++];
>   	new_map->addr = vaddr;
>
Burakov, Anatoly July 17, 2020, 2:23 p.m. UTC | #2 
On 17-Jul-20 3:19 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> On 16-Jul-20 2:38 PM, wangyunjian wrote:
>> From: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
>>
>> Currently, we will create new user mem map entry for the same memory
>> segment, but in fact it has already been added to the user mem maps.
>> It's not necessary to create it twice.
>>
>> Fixes: 0cbce3a167f1 ("vfio: skip DMA map failure if already mapped")
>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c | 7 +++++++
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c 
>> b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
>> index abb12a354..d8a8c39ab 100644
>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
>> @@ -1828,6 +1828,13 @@ container_dma_map(struct vfio_config *vfio_cfg, 
>> uint64_t vaddr, uint64_t iova,
>>           ret = -1;
>>           goto out;
>>       }
>> +
>> +    /* we don't need create new user mem map entry
>> +     * for the same memory segment.
>> +     */
>> +    if (errno == EBUSY || errno == EEXIST)
>> +        goto out;
>> +
> 
> I'm not sure i understand this patch. If we get errno, the call has 
> failed, which means we're doing "goto out" from a few lines above. Am i 
> missing something here?
> 
>>       /* create new user mem map entry */
>>       new_map = &user_mem_maps->maps[user_mem_maps->n_maps++];
>>       new_map->addr = vaddr;
>>
> 
> 

Oh, i see, the actual functions will set errno and return 0.

I don't think it's an actual issue as compacting will presumably remove 
the extra user mem map anyway. What exactly is being fixed here? Does 
compacting user mem maps not remove the extra entry?
Yunjian Wang July 20, 2020, 2 a.m. UTC | #3 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Burakov, Anatoly [mailto:anatoly.burakov@intel.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 10:24 PM
> To: wangyunjian <wangyunjian@huawei.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> david.marchand@redhat.com
> Cc: Lilijun (Jerry) <jerry.lilijun@huawei.com>; xudingke
> <xudingke@huawei.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] eal/linux: do not create user mem map
> repeatedly when it exists
> 
> On 17-Jul-20 3:19 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> > On 16-Jul-20 2:38 PM, wangyunjian wrote:
> >> From: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
> >>
> >> Currently, we will create new user mem map entry for the same memory
> >> segment, but in fact it has already been added to the user mem maps.
> >> It's not necessary to create it twice.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 0cbce3a167f1 ("vfio: skip DMA map failure if already mapped")
> >> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
> >> ---
> >>   lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c | 7 +++++++
> >>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
> >> b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c index abb12a354..d8a8c39ab 100644
> >> --- a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
> >> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
> >> @@ -1828,6 +1828,13 @@ container_dma_map(struct vfio_config
> >> *vfio_cfg, uint64_t vaddr, uint64_t iova,
> >>           ret = -1;
> >>           goto out;
> >>       }
> >> +
> >> +    /* we don't need create new user mem map entry
> >> +     * for the same memory segment.
> >> +     */
> >> +    if (errno == EBUSY || errno == EEXIST)
> >> +        goto out;
> >> +
> >
> > I'm not sure i understand this patch. If we get errno, the call has
> > failed, which means we're doing "goto out" from a few lines above. Am
> > i missing something here?
> >
> >>       /* create new user mem map entry */
> >>       new_map =
> &user_mem_maps->maps[user_mem_maps->n_maps++];
> >>       new_map->addr = vaddr;
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> Oh, i see, the actual functions will set errno and return 0.
> 
> I don't think it's an actual issue as compacting will presumably remove the
> extra user mem map anyway. What exactly is being fixed here? Does
> compacting user mem maps not remove the extra entry?

I read the codes about compacting user mem maps. Currently, the function
only merges adjacent user mem maps and does not remove the same entry.

How about removing the same entry in the fuction?

Thanks
Yunjian

> 
> --
> Thanks,
> Anatoly
Burakov, Anatoly July 20, 2020, 11:46 a.m. UTC | #4 
On 20-Jul-20 3:00 AM, wangyunjian wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Burakov, Anatoly [mailto:anatoly.burakov@intel.com]
>> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 10:24 PM
>> To: wangyunjian <wangyunjian@huawei.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
>> david.marchand@redhat.com
>> Cc: Lilijun (Jerry) <jerry.lilijun@huawei.com>; xudingke
>> <xudingke@huawei.com>; stable@dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] eal/linux: do not create user mem map
>> repeatedly when it exists
>>
>> On 17-Jul-20 3:19 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
>>> On 16-Jul-20 2:38 PM, wangyunjian wrote:
>>>> From: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
>>>>
>>>> Currently, we will create new user mem map entry for the same memory
>>>> segment, but in fact it has already been added to the user mem maps.
>>>> It's not necessary to create it twice.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 0cbce3a167f1 ("vfio: skip DMA map failure if already mapped")
>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c | 7 +++++++
>>>>    1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
>>>> b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c index abb12a354..d8a8c39ab 100644
>>>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
>>>> @@ -1828,6 +1828,13 @@ container_dma_map(struct vfio_config
>>>> *vfio_cfg, uint64_t vaddr, uint64_t iova,
>>>>            ret = -1;
>>>>            goto out;
>>>>        }
>>>> +
>>>> +    /* we don't need create new user mem map entry
>>>> +     * for the same memory segment.
>>>> +     */
>>>> +    if (errno == EBUSY || errno == EEXIST)
>>>> +        goto out;
>>>> +
>>>
>>> I'm not sure i understand this patch. If we get errno, the call has
>>> failed, which means we're doing "goto out" from a few lines above. Am
>>> i missing something here?
>>>
>>>>        /* create new user mem map entry */
>>>>        new_map =
>> &user_mem_maps->maps[user_mem_maps->n_maps++];
>>>>        new_map->addr = vaddr;
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Oh, i see, the actual functions will set errno and return 0.
>>
>> I don't think it's an actual issue as compacting will presumably remove the
>> extra user mem map anyway. What exactly is being fixed here? Does
>> compacting user mem maps not remove the extra entry?
> 
> I read the codes about compacting user mem maps. Currently, the function
> only merges adjacent user mem maps and does not remove the same entry.
> 
> How about removing the same entry in the fuction?

I would've expected "the same" to be within the definition of 
"adjacent". Can you confirm that this actually doesn't happen? If so, 
then yes, probably compacting should do that, instead of relying on an 
artifact of implementation.

> 
> Thanks
> Yunjian
> 
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Anatoly
Yunjian Wang July 22, 2020, 12:47 p.m. UTC | #5 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Burakov, Anatoly [mailto:anatoly.burakov@intel.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 7:46 PM
> To: wangyunjian <wangyunjian@huawei.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> david.marchand@redhat.com
> Cc: Lilijun (Jerry) <jerry.lilijun@huawei.com>; xudingke
> <xudingke@huawei.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] eal/linux: do not create user mem map
> repeatedly when it exists
> 
> On 20-Jul-20 3:00 AM, wangyunjian wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Burakov, Anatoly [mailto:anatoly.burakov@intel.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 10:24 PM
> >> To: wangyunjian <wangyunjian@huawei.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> >> david.marchand@redhat.com
> >> Cc: Lilijun (Jerry) <jerry.lilijun@huawei.com>; xudingke
> >> <xudingke@huawei.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] eal/linux: do not create user mem
> >> map repeatedly when it exists
> >>
> >> On 17-Jul-20 3:19 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> >>> On 16-Jul-20 2:38 PM, wangyunjian wrote:
> >>>> From: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> Currently, we will create new user mem map entry for the same
> >>>> memory segment, but in fact it has already been added to the user mem
> maps.
> >>>> It's not necessary to create it twice.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixes: 0cbce3a167f1 ("vfio: skip DMA map failure if already
> >>>> mapped")
> >>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>    lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c | 7 +++++++
> >>>>    1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
> >>>> b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c index abb12a354..d8a8c39ab 100644
> >>>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
> >>>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
> >>>> @@ -1828,6 +1828,13 @@ container_dma_map(struct vfio_config
> >>>> *vfio_cfg, uint64_t vaddr, uint64_t iova,
> >>>>            ret = -1;
> >>>>            goto out;
> >>>>        }
> >>>> +
> >>>> +    /* we don't need create new user mem map entry
> >>>> +     * for the same memory segment.
> >>>> +     */
> >>>> +    if (errno == EBUSY || errno == EEXIST)
> >>>> +        goto out;
> >>>> +
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure i understand this patch. If we get errno, the call has
> >>> failed, which means we're doing "goto out" from a few lines above.
> >>> Am i missing something here?
> >>>
> >>>>        /* create new user mem map entry */
> >>>>        new_map =
> >> &user_mem_maps->maps[user_mem_maps->n_maps++];
> >>>>        new_map->addr = vaddr;
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Oh, i see, the actual functions will set errno and return 0.
> >>
> >> I don't think it's an actual issue as compacting will presumably
> >> remove the extra user mem map anyway. What exactly is being fixed
> >> here? Does compacting user mem maps not remove the extra entry?
> >
> > I read the codes about compacting user mem maps. Currently, the
> > function only merges adjacent user mem maps and does not remove the
> same entry.
> >
> > How about removing the same entry in the fuction?
> 
> I would've expected "the same" to be within the definition of "adjacent". Can
> you confirm that this actually doesn't happen? If so, then yes, probably
> compacting should do that, instead of relying on an artifact of implementation.

OK, I will do that, will send the v2 later.

Thanks
Yunjian

> 
> >
> > Thanks
> > Yunjian
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thanks,
> >> Anatoly
> 
> 
> --
> Thanks,
> Anatoly
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
index abb12a354..d8a8c39ab 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal_vfio.c
@@ -1828,6 +1828,13 @@  container_dma_map(struct vfio_config *vfio_cfg, uint64_t vaddr, uint64_t iova,
 		ret = -1;
 		goto out;
 	}
+
+	/* we don't need create new user mem map entry
+	 * for the same memory segment.
+	 */
+	if (errno == EBUSY || errno == EEXIST)
+		goto out;
+
 	/* create new user mem map entry */
 	new_map = &user_mem_maps->maps[user_mem_maps->n_maps++];
 	new_map->addr = vaddr;