[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] Enhance virtio rpmsg bus driver buffer allocation
On Wed 05 Jun 00:33 PDT 2019, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:

> Hi Bjorn,
> On 6/5/19 6:34 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Thu 31 Jan 07:41 PST 2019, Xiang Xiao wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >> This series enhance the buffer allocation by:
> >> 1.Support the different buffer number in rx/tx direction
> >> 2.Get the individual rx/tx buffer size from config space
> >>
> >> Here is the related OpenAMP change:
> >>
> >>
> >
> > This looks pretty reasonable, but can you confirm that it's possible to
> > use new firmware with an old Linux kernel when introducing this?
> >
> >
> > But ever since we discussed Loic's similar proposal earlier I've been
> > questioning if the fixed buffer size isn't just an artifact of how we
> > preallocate our buffers. The virtqueue seems to support arbitrary sizes
> > of buffers and I see that the receive function in OpenAMP has been fixed
> > to put back the buffer of the size that was received, rather than 512
> > bytes. So it seems like Linux would be able to send whatever size
> > messages to OpenAMP it would handle it.
> >
> > The question is if we could do the same in the other direction, perhaps
> > by letting the OpenAMP side do it's message allocation when it's
> > sending, rather than Linux pushing inbufs to be filled by the remote.
> IMHO, both could be useful and could be not correlated.
> On-the fly buffer allocation seems more efficient but needs an
> allocator.This can be a generic allocator (with a va to da) for system
> where large amount of memories are accessible from both side.
> Now what about system with small shared memory? In this case you have to
> deal with a limited/optimized memory chunk. To avoid memory
> fragmentation the allocator should have a pre-reserved buffers pool(so
> similar to existing implementation). This serie seems useful to optimize
> the size of the pre-reserved pool.

Having an implementation that uses small fixed size buffers seems very
reasonable and I'm in favour of making the message size configurable.

I would however prefer to have this implemented in a way where the
remote side should not be receiving messages in a way that's based on
the remote side's allocation parameters.

I don't think this series prevents the introduction of such isolation,
but it would render this code unnecessary.


 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-01 08:15    [W:0.083 / U:4.964 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site