| Message ID | 20201027035330.29612-2-song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | dma-mapping: provide a benchmark for streaming DMA mapping | expand |
On 2020-10-27 03:53, Barry Song wrote: > Nowadays, there are increasing requirements to benchmark the performance > of dma_map and dma_unmap particually while the device is attached to an > IOMMU. > > This patch enables the support. Users can run specified number of threads > to do dma_map_page and dma_unmap_page on a specific NUMA node with the > specified duration. Then dma_map_benchmark will calculate the average > latency for map and unmap. > > A difficulity for this benchmark is that dma_map/unmap APIs must run on > a particular device. Each device might have different backend of IOMMU or > non-IOMMU. > > So we use the driver_override to bind dma_map_benchmark to a particual > device by: > echo dma_map_benchmark > /sys/bus/platform/devices/xxx/driver_override > echo xxx > /sys/bus/platform/drivers/xxx/unbind > echo xxx > /sys/bus/platform/drivers/dma_map_benchmark/bind > > For this moment, it supports platform device only, PCI device will also > be supported afterwards. Neat! This is something I've thought about many times, but never got round to attempting :) I think the basic latency measurement for mapping and unmapping pages is enough to start with, but there are definitely some more things that would be interesting to look into for future enhancements: - a choice of mapping sizes, both smaller and larger than one page, to help characterise stuff like cache maintenance overhead and bounce buffer/IOVA fragmentation. - alternative allocation patterns like doing lots of maps first, then all their corresponding unmaps (to provoke things like the worst-case IOVA rcache behaviour). - ways to exercise a range of those parameters at once across different threads in a single test. But let's get a basic framework nailed down first... > Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> > Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org> > Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> > Cc: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com> > Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com> > --- > kernel/dma/Kconfig | 8 ++ > kernel/dma/Makefile | 1 + > kernel/dma/map_benchmark.c | 202 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 211 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 kernel/dma/map_benchmark.c > > diff --git a/kernel/dma/Kconfig b/kernel/dma/Kconfig > index c99de4a21458..949c53da5991 100644 > --- a/kernel/dma/Kconfig > +++ b/kernel/dma/Kconfig > @@ -225,3 +225,11 @@ config DMA_API_DEBUG_SG > is technically out-of-spec. > > If unsure, say N. > + > +config DMA_MAP_BENCHMARK > + bool "Enable benchmarking of streaming DMA mapping" > + help > + Provides /sys/kernel/debug/dma_map_benchmark that helps with testing > + performance of dma_(un)map_page. > + > + See tools/testing/selftests/dma/dma_map_benchmark.c > diff --git a/kernel/dma/Makefile b/kernel/dma/Makefile > index dc755ab68aab..7aa6b26b1348 100644 > --- a/kernel/dma/Makefile > +++ b/kernel/dma/Makefile > @@ -10,3 +10,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG) += debug.o > obj-$(CONFIG_SWIOTLB) += swiotlb.o > obj-$(CONFIG_DMA_COHERENT_POOL) += pool.o > obj-$(CONFIG_DMA_REMAP) += remap.o > +obj-$(CONFIG_DMA_MAP_BENCHMARK) += map_benchmark.o > diff --git a/kernel/dma/map_benchmark.c b/kernel/dma/map_benchmark.c > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..16a5d7779d67 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/kernel/dma/map_benchmark.c > @@ -0,0 +1,202 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only > +/* > + * Copyright (C) 2020 Hisilicon Limited. > + */ > + > +#include <linux/kernel.h> > +#include <linux/module.h> > +#include <linux/device.h> > +#include <linux/kthread.h> > +#include <linux/slab.h> > +#include <linux/debugfs.h> > +#include <linux/dma-mapping.h> > +#include <linux/timekeeping.h> > +#include <linux/delay.h> > +#include <linux/platform_device.h> Nit: alphabetical order is always nice, when there's not an existing precedent of a complete mess... > + > +#define DMA_MAP_BENCHMARK _IOWR('d', 1, struct map_benchmark) > + > +struct map_benchmark { > + __u64 map_nsec; > + __u64 unmap_nsec; > + __u32 threads; /* how many threads will do map/unmap in parallel */ > + __u32 seconds; /* how long the test will last */ > + int node; /* which numa node this benchmark will run on */ > + __u64 expansion[10]; /* For future use */ > +}; I'm no expert on userspace ABIs (and what little experience I do have is mostly of Win32...), so hopefully someone else will comment if there's anything of concern here. One thing I wonder is that there's a fair likelihood of functionality evolving here over time, so might it be appropriate to have some sort of explicit versioning parameter for robustness? > +struct map_benchmark_data { > + struct map_benchmark bparam; > + struct device *dev; > + struct dentry *debugfs; > + atomic64_t total_map_nsecs; > + atomic64_t total_map_loops; > + atomic64_t total_unmap_nsecs; > + atomic64_t total_unmap_loops; > +}; > + > +static int map_benchmark_thread(void *data) > +{ > + struct page *page; > + dma_addr_t dma_addr; > + struct map_benchmark_data *map = data; > + int ret = 0; > + > + page = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!page) > + return -ENOMEM; > + > + while (!kthread_should_stop()) { > + ktime_t map_stime, map_etime, unmap_stime, unmap_etime; > + > + map_stime = ktime_get(); > + dma_addr = dma_map_page(map->dev, page, 0, PAGE_SIZE, DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL); Note that for a non-coherent device, this will give an underestimate of the real-world overhead of BIDIRECTIONAL or TO_DEVICE mappings, since the page will never be dirty in the cache (except possibly the very first time through). > + if (unlikely(dma_mapping_error(map->dev, dma_addr))) { > + dev_err(map->dev, "dma_map_page failed\n"); > + ret = -ENOMEM; > + goto out; > + } > + map_etime = ktime_get(); > + > + unmap_stime = ktime_get(); > + dma_unmap_single(map->dev, dma_addr, PAGE_SIZE, DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL); Ahem, dma_map_page() pairs with dma_unmap_page(). Unfortunately DMA_API_DEBUG is unable to shout at you for that... However, maybe changing the other end to dma_map_single() might make more sense, since you're not allocating highmem pages or anything wacky, and that'll be easier to expand in future. > + unmap_etime = ktime_get(); > + > + atomic64_add((long long)ktime_to_ns(ktime_sub(map_etime, map_stime)), > + &map->total_map_nsecs); ktime_to_ns() returns s64, which is already long long. > + atomic64_add((long long)ktime_to_ns(ktime_sub(unmap_etime, unmap_stime)), > + &map->total_unmap_nsecs); > + atomic64_inc(&map->total_map_loops); > + atomic64_inc(&map->total_unmap_loops); I think it would be worth keeping track of the variances as well - it can be hard to tell if a reasonable-looking average is hiding terrible worst-case behaviour. > + } > + > +out: > + __free_page(page); > + return ret; > +} > + > +static int do_map_benchmark(struct map_benchmark_data *map) > +{ > + struct task_struct **tsk; > + int threads = map->bparam.threads; I know it's debugfs, but maybe a bit of parameter validation wouldn't go amiss? I'm already imaginging that sinking feeling when the SSH connection stops responding and you realise you've just inadvertently launched INT_MAX threads... > + int node = map->bparam.node; > + const cpumask_t *cpu_mask = cpumask_of_node(node); > + int ret = 0; > + int i; > + > + tsk = kmalloc_array(threads, sizeof(tsk), GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!tsk) > + return -ENOMEM; > + > + get_device(map->dev); > + > + for (i = 0; i < threads; i++) { > + tsk[i] = kthread_create_on_node(map_benchmark_thread, map, > + map->bparam.node, "dma-map-benchmark/%d", i); > + if (IS_ERR(tsk[i])) { > + dev_err(map->dev, "create dma_map thread failed\n"); > + return PTR_ERR(tsk[i]); > + } > + > + if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE && node_online(node)) > + kthread_bind_mask(tsk[i], cpu_mask); > + > + wake_up_process(tsk[i]); Might it be better to create all the threads first, *then* start kicking them? > + } > + > + ssleep(map->bparam.seconds); > + > + /* wait for the completion of benchmark threads */ > + for (i = 0; i < threads; i++) { > + ret = kthread_stop(tsk[i]); > + if (ret) > + goto out; > + } > + > + /* average map nsec and unmap nsec */ > + map->bparam.map_nsec = atomic64_read(&map->total_map_nsecs) / > + atomic64_read(&map->total_map_loops); > + map->bparam.unmap_nsec = atomic64_read(&map->total_unmap_nsecs) / > + atomic64_read(&map->total_unmap_loops); > + > +out: > + put_device(map->dev); > + kfree(tsk); > + return ret; > +} > + > +static long map_benchmark_ioctl(struct file *filep, unsigned int cmd, > + unsigned long arg) > +{ > + struct map_benchmark_data *map = filep->private_data; > + int ret; > + > + if (copy_from_user(&map->bparam, (void __user *)arg, sizeof(map->bparam))) > + return -EFAULT; > + > + switch (cmd) { > + case DMA_MAP_BENCHMARK: > + ret = do_map_benchmark(map); > + break; > + default: > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > + if (copy_to_user((void __user *)arg, &map->bparam, sizeof(map->bparam))) > + return -EFAULT; > + > + return ret; > +} > + > +static const struct file_operations map_benchmark_fops = { > + .open = simple_open, > + .unlocked_ioctl = map_benchmark_ioctl, > +}; > + > +static int map_benchmark_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > +{ > + struct dentry *entry; > + struct map_benchmark_data *map; > + > + map = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*map), GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!map) > + return -ENOMEM; > + > + map->dev = &pdev->dev; > + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, map); > + > + /* > + * we only permit a device bound with this driver, 2nd probe > + * will fail > + */ > + entry = debugfs_create_file("dma_map_benchmark", 0600, NULL, map, > + &map_benchmark_fops); > + if (IS_ERR(entry)) > + return PTR_ERR(entry); > + map->debugfs = entry; > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int map_benchmark_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > +{ > + struct map_benchmark_data *map = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); > + > + debugfs_remove(map->debugfs); Consider a trivial 3-line wrapper plus a devm_add_action() call ;) Robin. > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static struct platform_driver map_benchmark_driver = { > + .driver = { > + .name = "dma_map_benchmark", > + }, > + .probe = map_benchmark_probe, > + .remove = map_benchmark_remove, > +}; > + > +module_platform_driver(map_benchmark_driver); > + > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>"); > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("dma_map benchmark driver"); > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); >
> -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Murphy [mailto:robin.murphy@arm.com] > Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 8:38 AM > To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>; > iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org; hch@lst.de; m.szyprowski@samsung.com > Cc: joro@8bytes.org; will@kernel.org; shuah@kernel.org; Linuxarm > <linuxarm@huawei.com>; linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dma-mapping: add benchmark support for streaming > DMA APIs > > On 2020-10-27 03:53, Barry Song wrote: > > Nowadays, there are increasing requirements to benchmark the performance > > of dma_map and dma_unmap particually while the device is attached to an > > IOMMU. > > > > This patch enables the support. Users can run specified number of threads > > to do dma_map_page and dma_unmap_page on a specific NUMA node with > the > > specified duration. Then dma_map_benchmark will calculate the average > > latency for map and unmap. > > > > A difficulity for this benchmark is that dma_map/unmap APIs must run on > > a particular device. Each device might have different backend of IOMMU or > > non-IOMMU. > > > > So we use the driver_override to bind dma_map_benchmark to a particual > > device by: > > echo dma_map_benchmark > /sys/bus/platform/devices/xxx/driver_override > > echo xxx > /sys/bus/platform/drivers/xxx/unbind > > echo xxx > /sys/bus/platform/drivers/dma_map_benchmark/bind > > > > For this moment, it supports platform device only, PCI device will also > > be supported afterwards. > > Neat! This is something I've thought about many times, but never got > round to attempting :) I am happy you have the same needs. When I came to IOMMU area a half year ago, the first thing I've done was writing a rough benchmark. At that time, I hacked kernel to get a device behind an IOMMU. Recently, I got some time to think about how to get "device" without ugly hacking and then clean up code for sending patches out to provide a common benchmark in order that everybody can use. > > I think the basic latency measurement for mapping and unmapping pages is > enough to start with, but there are definitely some more things that > would be interesting to look into for future enhancements: > > - a choice of mapping sizes, both smaller and larger than one page, to > help characterise stuff like cache maintenance overhead and bounce > buffer/IOVA fragmentation. > - alternative allocation patterns like doing lots of maps first, then > all their corresponding unmaps (to provoke things like the worst-case > IOVA rcache behaviour). > - ways to exercise a range of those parameters at once across > different threads in a single test. > Yes, sure. Once we have a basic framework, we can add more benchmark patterns by using different parameters in the userspace tool: testing/selftests/dma/dma_map_benchmark.c Similar function extensions have been carried out in GUP_BENCHMARK. > But let's get a basic framework nailed down first... Sure. > > > Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> > > Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org> > > Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> > > Cc: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com> > > Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> > > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com> > > --- > > kernel/dma/Kconfig | 8 ++ > > kernel/dma/Makefile | 1 + > > kernel/dma/map_benchmark.c | 202 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 3 files changed, 211 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 kernel/dma/map_benchmark.c > > > > diff --git a/kernel/dma/Kconfig b/kernel/dma/Kconfig > > index c99de4a21458..949c53da5991 100644 > > --- a/kernel/dma/Kconfig > > +++ b/kernel/dma/Kconfig > > @@ -225,3 +225,11 @@ config DMA_API_DEBUG_SG > > is technically out-of-spec. > > > > If unsure, say N. > > + > > +config DMA_MAP_BENCHMARK > > + bool "Enable benchmarking of streaming DMA mapping" > > + help > > + Provides /sys/kernel/debug/dma_map_benchmark that helps with > testing > > + performance of dma_(un)map_page. > > + > > + See tools/testing/selftests/dma/dma_map_benchmark.c > > diff --git a/kernel/dma/Makefile b/kernel/dma/Makefile > > index dc755ab68aab..7aa6b26b1348 100644 > > --- a/kernel/dma/Makefile > > +++ b/kernel/dma/Makefile > > @@ -10,3 +10,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG) += debug.o > > obj-$(CONFIG_SWIOTLB) += swiotlb.o > > obj-$(CONFIG_DMA_COHERENT_POOL) += pool.o > > obj-$(CONFIG_DMA_REMAP) += remap.o > > +obj-$(CONFIG_DMA_MAP_BENCHMARK) += map_benchmark.o > > diff --git a/kernel/dma/map_benchmark.c b/kernel/dma/map_benchmark.c > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..16a5d7779d67 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/kernel/dma/map_benchmark.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,202 @@ > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only > > +/* > > + * Copyright (C) 2020 Hisilicon Limited. > > + */ > > + > > +#include <linux/kernel.h> > > +#include <linux/module.h> > > +#include <linux/device.h> > > +#include <linux/kthread.h> > > +#include <linux/slab.h> > > +#include <linux/debugfs.h> > > +#include <linux/dma-mapping.h> > > +#include <linux/timekeeping.h> > > +#include <linux/delay.h> > > +#include <linux/platform_device.h> > > Nit: alphabetical order is always nice, when there's not an existing > precedent of a complete mess... > > > + > > +#define DMA_MAP_BENCHMARK _IOWR('d', 1, struct map_benchmark) > > + > > +struct map_benchmark { > > + __u64 map_nsec; > > + __u64 unmap_nsec; > > + __u32 threads; /* how many threads will do map/unmap in parallel */ > > + __u32 seconds; /* how long the test will last */ > > + int node; /* which numa node this benchmark will run on */ > > + __u64 expansion[10]; /* For future use */ > > +}; > > I'm no expert on userspace ABIs (and what little experience I do have is > mostly of Win32...), so hopefully someone else will comment if there's > anything of concern here. One thing I wonder is that there's a fair > likelihood of functionality evolving here over time, so might it be > appropriate to have some sort of explicit versioning parameter for > robustness? I copied that from gup_benchmark. There is no this kind of code to compare version. I believe there is a likelihood that kernel module is changed but users are still using old userspace tool, this might lead to the incompatible data structure. But not sure if it is a big problem :-) > > > +struct map_benchmark_data { > > + struct map_benchmark bparam; > > + struct device *dev; > > + struct dentry *debugfs; > > + atomic64_t total_map_nsecs; > > + atomic64_t total_map_loops; > > + atomic64_t total_unmap_nsecs; > > + atomic64_t total_unmap_loops; > > +}; > > + > > +static int map_benchmark_thread(void *data) > > +{ > > + struct page *page; > > + dma_addr_t dma_addr; > > + struct map_benchmark_data *map = data; > > + int ret = 0; > > + > > + page = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL); > > + if (!page) > > + return -ENOMEM; > > + > > + while (!kthread_should_stop()) { > > + ktime_t map_stime, map_etime, unmap_stime, unmap_etime; > > + > > + map_stime = ktime_get(); > > + dma_addr = dma_map_page(map->dev, page, 0, PAGE_SIZE, > DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL); > > Note that for a non-coherent device, this will give an underestimate of > the real-world overhead of BIDIRECTIONAL or TO_DEVICE mappings, since > the page will never be dirty in the cache (except possibly the very > first time through). Agreed. I'd like to add a DIRECTION parameter like "-d 0", "-d 1" after we have this basic framework. > > > + if (unlikely(dma_mapping_error(map->dev, dma_addr))) { > > + dev_err(map->dev, "dma_map_page failed\n"); > > + ret = -ENOMEM; > > + goto out; > > + } > > + map_etime = ktime_get(); > > + > > + unmap_stime = ktime_get(); > > + dma_unmap_single(map->dev, dma_addr, PAGE_SIZE, > DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL); > > Ahem, dma_map_page() pairs with dma_unmap_page(). Unfortunately > DMA_API_DEBUG is unable to shout at you for that... This is a typo. At the beginning, we used dma_map_single and dma_unmap_single. After that, I changed to alloc_page so moved to dma_map_page. But I missed the unmap part. > > However, maybe changing the other end to dma_map_single() might make > more sense, since you're not allocating highmem pages or anything wacky, > and that'll be easier to expand in future. > Yes. I can either change both to map_page/unmap_page or both to map_single/ unmap_single. > > + unmap_etime = ktime_get(); > > + > > + atomic64_add((long long)ktime_to_ns(ktime_sub(map_etime, > map_stime)), > > + &map->total_map_nsecs); > > ktime_to_ns() returns s64, which is already long long. Got it. > > > + atomic64_add((long long)ktime_to_ns(ktime_sub(unmap_etime, > unmap_stime)), > > + &map->total_unmap_nsecs); > > + atomic64_inc(&map->total_map_loops); > > + atomic64_inc(&map->total_unmap_loops); > > I think it would be worth keeping track of the variances as well - it > can be hard to tell if a reasonable-looking average is hiding terrible > worst-case behaviour. This is a sensible requirement. I believe it is better to be handled by the existing kernel tracing method. Maybe we need a histogram like: Delay sample count 1-2us 1000 *** 2-3us 2000 ******* 3-4us 100 * ..... This will be more precise than the maximum latency in the worst case. I'd believe this can be handled by: tracepoint A Map Tracepoint B Tracepoint C Unmap Tracepoint D Let the userspace ebpf to draw the histogram for the delta of B-A and D-C. So I am planning to put this requirement into todo list and write an userspace ebpf/bcc script for histogram and put in tools/ directory. Please give your comments on this. > > > + } > > + > > +out: > > + __free_page(page); > > + return ret; > > +} > > + > > +static int do_map_benchmark(struct map_benchmark_data *map) > > +{ > > + struct task_struct **tsk; > > + int threads = map->bparam.threads; > > I know it's debugfs, but maybe a bit of parameter validation wouldn't go > amiss? I'm already imaginging that sinking feeling when the SSH > connection stops responding and you realise you've just inadvertently > launched INT_MAX threads... Agreed. > > > + int node = map->bparam.node; > > + const cpumask_t *cpu_mask = cpumask_of_node(node); > > + int ret = 0; > > + int i; > > + > > + tsk = kmalloc_array(threads, sizeof(tsk), GFP_KERNEL); > > + if (!tsk) > > + return -ENOMEM; > > + > > + get_device(map->dev); > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < threads; i++) { > > + tsk[i] = kthread_create_on_node(map_benchmark_thread, map, > > + map->bparam.node, "dma-map-benchmark/%d", i); > > + if (IS_ERR(tsk[i])) { > > + dev_err(map->dev, "create dma_map thread failed\n"); > > + return PTR_ERR(tsk[i]); > > + } > > + > > + if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE && node_online(node)) > > + kthread_bind_mask(tsk[i], cpu_mask); > > + > > + wake_up_process(tsk[i]); > > Might it be better to create all the threads first, *then* start kicking > them? The difficulty is that we don't know how many threads we should create as the thread number is a parameter to test the contention of IOMMU driver. In my test case, I'd like to test things like One thread Two threads .... 8 threads 12 threads 16 threads... On the other hand, I think it is better to drop the memory of task_struct of those test threads while we are not testing dma map. > > > + } > > + > > + ssleep(map->bparam.seconds); > > + > > + /* wait for the completion of benchmark threads */ > > + for (i = 0; i < threads; i++) { > > + ret = kthread_stop(tsk[i]); > > + if (ret) > > + goto out; > > + } > > + > > + /* average map nsec and unmap nsec */ > > + map->bparam.map_nsec = atomic64_read(&map->total_map_nsecs) / > > + atomic64_read(&map->total_map_loops); > > + map->bparam.unmap_nsec = atomic64_read(&map->total_unmap_nsecs) > / > > + atomic64_read(&map->total_unmap_loops); > > + > > +out: > > + put_device(map->dev); > > + kfree(tsk); > > + return ret; > > +} > > + > > +static long map_benchmark_ioctl(struct file *filep, unsigned int cmd, > > + unsigned long arg) > > +{ > > + struct map_benchmark_data *map = filep->private_data; > > + int ret; > > + > > + if (copy_from_user(&map->bparam, (void __user *)arg, > sizeof(map->bparam))) > > + return -EFAULT; > > + > > + switch (cmd) { > > + case DMA_MAP_BENCHMARK: > > + ret = do_map_benchmark(map); > > + break; > > + default: > > + return -EINVAL; > > + } > > + > > + if (copy_to_user((void __user *)arg, &map->bparam, > sizeof(map->bparam))) > > + return -EFAULT; > > + > > + return ret; > > +} > > + > > +static const struct file_operations map_benchmark_fops = { > > + .open = simple_open, > > + .unlocked_ioctl = map_benchmark_ioctl, > > +}; > > + > > +static int map_benchmark_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > +{ > > + struct dentry *entry; > > + struct map_benchmark_data *map; > > + > > + map = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*map), GFP_KERNEL); > > + if (!map) > > + return -ENOMEM; > > + > > + map->dev = &pdev->dev; > > + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, map); > > + > > + /* > > + * we only permit a device bound with this driver, 2nd probe > > + * will fail > > + */ > > + entry = debugfs_create_file("dma_map_benchmark", 0600, NULL, map, > > + &map_benchmark_fops); > > + if (IS_ERR(entry)) > > + return PTR_ERR(entry); > > + map->debugfs = entry; > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > +static int map_benchmark_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > > +{ > > + struct map_benchmark_data *map = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); > > + > > + debugfs_remove(map->debugfs); > > Consider a trivial 3-line wrapper plus a devm_add_action() call ;) > Yes, I will. > Robin. > > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > +static struct platform_driver map_benchmark_driver = { > > + .driver = { > > + .name = "dma_map_benchmark", > > + }, > > + .probe = map_benchmark_probe, > > + .remove = map_benchmark_remove, > > +}; > > + > > +module_platform_driver(map_benchmark_driver); > > + > > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>"); > > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("dma_map benchmark driver"); > > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); Thanks Barry
On 2020-10-29 21:39, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote: [...] >>> +struct map_benchmark { >>> + __u64 map_nsec; >>> + __u64 unmap_nsec; >>> + __u32 threads; /* how many threads will do map/unmap in parallel */ >>> + __u32 seconds; /* how long the test will last */ >>> + int node; /* which numa node this benchmark will run on */ >>> + __u64 expansion[10]; /* For future use */ >>> +}; >> >> I'm no expert on userspace ABIs (and what little experience I do have is >> mostly of Win32...), so hopefully someone else will comment if there's >> anything of concern here. One thing I wonder is that there's a fair >> likelihood of functionality evolving here over time, so might it be >> appropriate to have some sort of explicit versioning parameter for >> robustness? > > I copied that from gup_benchmark. There is no this kind of code to > compare version. > I believe there is a likelihood that kernel module is changed but users > are still using old userspace tool, this might lead to the incompatible > data structure. > But not sure if it is a big problem :-) Yeah, like I say I don't really have a good feeling for what would be best here, I'm just thinking of what I do know and wary of the potential for a "640 bits ought to be enough for anyone" issue ;) >>> +struct map_benchmark_data { >>> + struct map_benchmark bparam; >>> + struct device *dev; >>> + struct dentry *debugfs; >>> + atomic64_t total_map_nsecs; >>> + atomic64_t total_map_loops; >>> + atomic64_t total_unmap_nsecs; >>> + atomic64_t total_unmap_loops; >>> +}; >>> + >>> +static int map_benchmark_thread(void *data) >>> +{ >>> + struct page *page; >>> + dma_addr_t dma_addr; >>> + struct map_benchmark_data *map = data; >>> + int ret = 0; >>> + >>> + page = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL); >>> + if (!page) >>> + return -ENOMEM; >>> + >>> + while (!kthread_should_stop()) { >>> + ktime_t map_stime, map_etime, unmap_stime, unmap_etime; >>> + >>> + map_stime = ktime_get(); >>> + dma_addr = dma_map_page(map->dev, page, 0, PAGE_SIZE, >> DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL); >> >> Note that for a non-coherent device, this will give an underestimate of >> the real-world overhead of BIDIRECTIONAL or TO_DEVICE mappings, since >> the page will never be dirty in the cache (except possibly the very >> first time through). > > Agreed. I'd like to add a DIRECTION parameter like "-d 0", "-d 1" after we have > this basic framework. That wasn't so much about the direction itself, just that if it's anything other than FROM_DEVICE, we should probably do something to dirty the buffer by a reasonable amount before each map. Otherwise the measured performance is going to be unrealistic on many systems. [...] >>> + atomic64_add((long long)ktime_to_ns(ktime_sub(unmap_etime, >> unmap_stime)), >>> + &map->total_unmap_nsecs); >>> + atomic64_inc(&map->total_map_loops); >>> + atomic64_inc(&map->total_unmap_loops); >> >> I think it would be worth keeping track of the variances as well - it >> can be hard to tell if a reasonable-looking average is hiding terrible >> worst-case behaviour. > > This is a sensible requirement. I believe it is better to be handled by the > existing kernel tracing method. > > Maybe we need a histogram like: > Delay sample count > 1-2us 1000 *** > 2-3us 2000 ******* > 3-4us 100 * > ..... > This will be more precise than the maximum latency in the worst > case. > > I'd believe this can be handled by: > tracepoint A > Map > Tracepoint B > > Tracepoint C > Unmap > Tracepoint D > > Let the userspace ebpf to draw the histogram for the delta of B-A and D-C. > > So I am planning to put this requirement into todo list and write an userspace > ebpf/bcc script for histogram and put in tools/ directory. > > Please give your comments on this. Right, I wasn't suggesting trying to homebrew a full data collection system here - I agree there are better tools for that already - just that it's basically free to track a sum of squares alongside a sum, so that we can trivially calculate a useful variance (or standard deviation) figure alongside the mean at the end. [...] >>> + for (i = 0; i < threads; i++) { >>> + tsk[i] = kthread_create_on_node(map_benchmark_thread, map, >>> + map->bparam.node, "dma-map-benchmark/%d", i); >>> + if (IS_ERR(tsk[i])) { >>> + dev_err(map->dev, "create dma_map thread failed\n"); >>> + return PTR_ERR(tsk[i]); >>> + } >>> + >>> + if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE && node_online(node)) >>> + kthread_bind_mask(tsk[i], cpu_mask); >>> + >>> + wake_up_process(tsk[i]); >> >> Might it be better to create all the threads first, *then* start kicking >> them? > > The difficulty is that we don't know how many threads we should create as > the thread number is a parameter to test the contention of IOMMU driver. > In my test case, I'd like to test things like > One thread > Two threads > .... > 8 threads > 12 threads > 16 threads... > > On the other hand, I think it is better to drop the memory of task_struct of those > test threads while we are not testing dma map. I simply meant splitting the loop here into two - one to create the threads and set their affinity, then another to wake them all up - so we don't start unnecessarily thrashing the system while we're still trying to set up the rest of the test ;) Robin.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Murphy [mailto:robin.murphy@arm.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 4:48 AM > To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>; > iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org; hch@lst.de; m.szyprowski@samsung.com > Cc: joro@8bytes.org; will@kernel.org; shuah@kernel.org; Linuxarm > <linuxarm@huawei.com>; linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dma-mapping: add benchmark support for streaming > DMA APIs > > On 2020-10-29 21:39, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote: > [...] > >>> +struct map_benchmark { > >>> + __u64 map_nsec; > >>> + __u64 unmap_nsec; > >>> + __u32 threads; /* how many threads will do map/unmap in parallel > */ > >>> + __u32 seconds; /* how long the test will last */ > >>> + int node; /* which numa node this benchmark will run on */ > >>> + __u64 expansion[10]; /* For future use */ > >>> +}; > >> > >> I'm no expert on userspace ABIs (and what little experience I do have > >> is mostly of Win32...), so hopefully someone else will comment if > >> there's anything of concern here. One thing I wonder is that there's > >> a fair likelihood of functionality evolving here over time, so might > >> it be appropriate to have some sort of explicit versioning parameter > >> for robustness? > > > > I copied that from gup_benchmark. There is no this kind of code to > > compare version. > > I believe there is a likelihood that kernel module is changed but > > users are still using old userspace tool, this might lead to the > > incompatible data structure. > > But not sure if it is a big problem :-) > > Yeah, like I say I don't really have a good feeling for what would be best here, > I'm just thinking of what I do know and wary of the potential for a "640 bits > ought to be enough for anyone" issue ;) > > >>> +struct map_benchmark_data { > >>> + struct map_benchmark bparam; > >>> + struct device *dev; > >>> + struct dentry *debugfs; > >>> + atomic64_t total_map_nsecs; > >>> + atomic64_t total_map_loops; > >>> + atomic64_t total_unmap_nsecs; > >>> + atomic64_t total_unmap_loops; > >>> +}; > >>> + > >>> +static int map_benchmark_thread(void *data) { > >>> + struct page *page; > >>> + dma_addr_t dma_addr; > >>> + struct map_benchmark_data *map = data; > >>> + int ret = 0; > >>> + > >>> + page = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL); > >>> + if (!page) > >>> + return -ENOMEM; > >>> + > >>> + while (!kthread_should_stop()) { > >>> + ktime_t map_stime, map_etime, unmap_stime, unmap_etime; > >>> + > >>> + map_stime = ktime_get(); > >>> + dma_addr = dma_map_page(map->dev, page, 0, PAGE_SIZE, > >> DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL); > >> > >> Note that for a non-coherent device, this will give an underestimate > >> of the real-world overhead of BIDIRECTIONAL or TO_DEVICE mappings, > >> since the page will never be dirty in the cache (except possibly the > >> very first time through). > > > > Agreed. I'd like to add a DIRECTION parameter like "-d 0", "-d 1" > > after we have this basic framework. > > That wasn't so much about the direction itself, just that if it's anything other > than FROM_DEVICE, we should probably do something to dirty the buffer by a > reasonable amount before each map. Otherwise the measured performance is > going to be unrealistic on many systems. Maybe put a memset(buf, 0, PAGE_SIZE) before dma_map will help ? > > [...] > >>> + atomic64_add((long long)ktime_to_ns(ktime_sub(unmap_etime, > >> unmap_stime)), > >>> + &map->total_unmap_nsecs); > >>> + atomic64_inc(&map->total_map_loops); > >>> + atomic64_inc(&map->total_unmap_loops); > >> > >> I think it would be worth keeping track of the variances as well - it > >> can be hard to tell if a reasonable-looking average is hiding > >> terrible worst-case behaviour. > > > > This is a sensible requirement. I believe it is better to be handled > > by the existing kernel tracing method. > > > > Maybe we need a histogram like: > > Delay sample count > > 1-2us 1000 *** > > 2-3us 2000 ******* > > 3-4us 100 * > > ..... > > This will be more precise than the maximum latency in the worst case. > > > > I'd believe this can be handled by: > > tracepoint A > > Map > > Tracepoint B > > > > Tracepoint C > > Unmap > > Tracepoint D > > > > Let the userspace ebpf to draw the histogram for the delta of B-A and D-C. > > > > So I am planning to put this requirement into todo list and write an > > userspace ebpf/bcc script for histogram and put in tools/ directory. > > > > Please give your comments on this. > > Right, I wasn't suggesting trying to homebrew a full data collection system here > - I agree there are better tools for that already - just that it's basically free to > track a sum of squares alongside a sum, so that we can trivially calculate a > useful variance (or standard > deviation) figure alongside the mean at the end. For this case, I am not sure if it is true. Unless we expose more data such as min, max etc. to userspace, it makes no difference whether total_(un)map_nsecs and total_(un)map_loops are exposed or not. As total loops = seconds / (avg_map_latency + avg_unmap_latency); total_map_nsecs = total loop count * avg_map_latency total_unmap_nsecs = total loop count * avg_unmap_latency all of seconds, avg_unmap_latency, avg_unmap_latency are known by userspace tool. > > [...] > >>> + for (i = 0; i < threads; i++) { > >>> + tsk[i] = kthread_create_on_node(map_benchmark_thread, map, > >>> + map->bparam.node, "dma-map-benchmark/%d", i); > >>> + if (IS_ERR(tsk[i])) { > >>> + dev_err(map->dev, "create dma_map thread failed\n"); > >>> + return PTR_ERR(tsk[i]); > >>> + } > >>> + > >>> + if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE && node_online(node)) > >>> + kthread_bind_mask(tsk[i], cpu_mask); > >>> + > >>> + wake_up_process(tsk[i]); > >> > >> Might it be better to create all the threads first, *then* start > >> kicking them? > > > > The difficulty is that we don't know how many threads we should create > > as the thread number is a parameter to test the contention of IOMMU driver. > > In my test case, I'd like to test things like One thread Two threads > > .... > > 8 threads > > 12 threads > > 16 threads... > > > > On the other hand, I think it is better to drop the memory of > > task_struct of those test threads while we are not testing dma map. > > I simply meant splitting the loop here into two - one to create the threads and > set their affinity, then another to wake them all up - so we don't start > unnecessarily thrashing the system while we're still trying to set up the rest of > the test ;) Agreed. > > Robin. Thanks Barry
> -----Original Message----- > From: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) [mailto:song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 10:45 PM > To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>; > iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org; hch@lst.de; m.szyprowski@samsung.com > Cc: joro@8bytes.org; will@kernel.org; shuah@kernel.org; Linuxarm > <linuxarm@huawei.com>; linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org > Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] dma-mapping: add benchmark support for streaming > DMA APIs > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Robin Murphy [mailto:robin.murphy@arm.com] > > Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 4:48 AM > > To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>; > > iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org; hch@lst.de; m.szyprowski@samsung.com > > Cc: joro@8bytes.org; will@kernel.org; shuah@kernel.org; Linuxarm > > <linuxarm@huawei.com>; linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dma-mapping: add benchmark support for > streaming > > DMA APIs > > > > On 2020-10-29 21:39, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote: > > [...] > > >>> +struct map_benchmark { > > >>> + __u64 map_nsec; > > >>> + __u64 unmap_nsec; > > >>> + __u32 threads; /* how many threads will do map/unmap in parallel > > */ > > >>> + __u32 seconds; /* how long the test will last */ > > >>> + int node; /* which numa node this benchmark will run on */ > > >>> + __u64 expansion[10]; /* For future use */ > > >>> +}; > > >> > > >> I'm no expert on userspace ABIs (and what little experience I do have > > >> is mostly of Win32...), so hopefully someone else will comment if > > >> there's anything of concern here. One thing I wonder is that there's > > >> a fair likelihood of functionality evolving here over time, so might > > >> it be appropriate to have some sort of explicit versioning parameter > > >> for robustness? > > > > > > I copied that from gup_benchmark. There is no this kind of code to > > > compare version. > > > I believe there is a likelihood that kernel module is changed but > > > users are still using old userspace tool, this might lead to the > > > incompatible data structure. > > > But not sure if it is a big problem :-) > > > > Yeah, like I say I don't really have a good feeling for what would be best here, > > I'm just thinking of what I do know and wary of the potential for a "640 bits > > ought to be enough for anyone" issue ;) > > > > >>> +struct map_benchmark_data { > > >>> + struct map_benchmark bparam; > > >>> + struct device *dev; > > >>> + struct dentry *debugfs; > > >>> + atomic64_t total_map_nsecs; > > >>> + atomic64_t total_map_loops; > > >>> + atomic64_t total_unmap_nsecs; > > >>> + atomic64_t total_unmap_loops; > > >>> +}; > > >>> + > > >>> +static int map_benchmark_thread(void *data) { > > >>> + struct page *page; > > >>> + dma_addr_t dma_addr; > > >>> + struct map_benchmark_data *map = data; > > >>> + int ret = 0; > > >>> + > > >>> + page = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL); > > >>> + if (!page) > > >>> + return -ENOMEM; > > >>> + > > >>> + while (!kthread_should_stop()) { > > >>> + ktime_t map_stime, map_etime, unmap_stime, unmap_etime; > > >>> + > > >>> + map_stime = ktime_get(); > > >>> + dma_addr = dma_map_page(map->dev, page, 0, PAGE_SIZE, > > >> DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL); > > >> > > >> Note that for a non-coherent device, this will give an underestimate > > >> of the real-world overhead of BIDIRECTIONAL or TO_DEVICE mappings, > > >> since the page will never be dirty in the cache (except possibly the > > >> very first time through). > > > > > > Agreed. I'd like to add a DIRECTION parameter like "-d 0", "-d 1" > > > after we have this basic framework. > > > > That wasn't so much about the direction itself, just that if it's anything other > > than FROM_DEVICE, we should probably do something to dirty the buffer by > a > > reasonable amount before each map. Otherwise the measured performance > is > > going to be unrealistic on many systems. > > Maybe put a memset(buf, 0, PAGE_SIZE) before dma_map will help ? > > > > > [...] > > >>> + atomic64_add((long long)ktime_to_ns(ktime_sub(unmap_etime, > > >> unmap_stime)), > > >>> + &map->total_unmap_nsecs); > > >>> + atomic64_inc(&map->total_map_loops); > > >>> + atomic64_inc(&map->total_unmap_loops); > > >> > > >> I think it would be worth keeping track of the variances as well - it > > >> can be hard to tell if a reasonable-looking average is hiding > > >> terrible worst-case behaviour. > > > > > > This is a sensible requirement. I believe it is better to be handled > > > by the existing kernel tracing method. > > > > > > Maybe we need a histogram like: > > > Delay sample count > > > 1-2us 1000 *** > > > 2-3us 2000 ******* > > > 3-4us 100 * > > > ..... > > > This will be more precise than the maximum latency in the worst case. > > > > > > I'd believe this can be handled by: > > > tracepoint A > > > Map > > > Tracepoint B > > > > > > Tracepoint C > > > Unmap > > > Tracepoint D > > > > > > Let the userspace ebpf to draw the histogram for the delta of B-A and D-C. > > > > > > So I am planning to put this requirement into todo list and write an > > > userspace ebpf/bcc script for histogram and put in tools/ directory. > > > > > > Please give your comments on this. > > > > Right, I wasn't suggesting trying to homebrew a full data collection system > here > > - I agree there are better tools for that already - just that it's basically free to > > track a sum of squares alongside a sum, so that we can trivially calculate a > > useful variance (or standard > > deviation) figure alongside the mean at the end. > > For this case, I am not sure if it is true. Unless we expose more data such as > min, max etc. to userspace, it makes no difference whether > total_(un)map_nsecs > and total_(un)map_loops are exposed or not. > > As > total loops = seconds / (avg_map_latency + avg_unmap_latency); > total_map_nsecs = total loop count * avg_map_latency > total_unmap_nsecs = total loop count * avg_unmap_latency > > all of seconds, avg_unmap_latency, avg_unmap_latency are known by > userspace tool. > After second thought, it seems you mean the kernel code can output the below to userspace: 1. total loops 2. sum of map and unmap latencies 3. sum of square of map and unmap latencies +struct map_benchmark { + __u64 total_loops; + __u64 sum_map_nsec; + __u64 sum_unmap_nsec; + __u64 sum_of_square_map_nsec; + __u64 sum_of_square_unmap_nsec; + __u32 threads; /* how many threads will do map/unmap in parallel */ + __u32 seconds; /* how long the test will last */ + int node; /* which numa node this benchmark will run on */ + __u64 expansion[10]; /* For future use */ +}; Then we calculate average map/unmap nsec and variance in the userspace tool. > > > > [...] > > >>> + for (i = 0; i < threads; i++) { > > >>> + tsk[i] = kthread_create_on_node(map_benchmark_thread, map, > > >>> + map->bparam.node, "dma-map-benchmark/%d", i); > > >>> + if (IS_ERR(tsk[i])) { > > >>> + dev_err(map->dev, "create dma_map thread failed\n"); > > >>> + return PTR_ERR(tsk[i]); > > >>> + } > > >>> + > > >>> + if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE && node_online(node)) > > >>> + kthread_bind_mask(tsk[i], cpu_mask); > > >>> + > > >>> + wake_up_process(tsk[i]); > > >> > > >> Might it be better to create all the threads first, *then* start > > >> kicking them? > > > > > > The difficulty is that we don't know how many threads we should create > > > as the thread number is a parameter to test the contention of IOMMU > driver. > > > In my test case, I'd like to test things like One thread Two threads > > > .... > > > 8 threads > > > 12 threads > > > 16 threads... > > > > > > On the other hand, I think it is better to drop the memory of > > > task_struct of those test threads while we are not testing dma map. > > > > I simply meant splitting the loop here into two - one to create the threads and > > set their affinity, then another to wake them all up - so we don't start > > unnecessarily thrashing the system while we're still trying to set up the rest > of > > the test ;) > > Agreed. > > > > > Robin. > Thanks Barry
diff --git a/kernel/dma/Kconfig b/kernel/dma/Kconfig index c99de4a21458..949c53da5991 100644 --- a/kernel/dma/Kconfig +++ b/kernel/dma/Kconfig @@ -225,3 +225,11 @@ config DMA_API_DEBUG_SG is technically out-of-spec. If unsure, say N. + +config DMA_MAP_BENCHMARK + bool "Enable benchmarking of streaming DMA mapping" + help + Provides /sys/kernel/debug/dma_map_benchmark that helps with testing + performance of dma_(un)map_page. + + See tools/testing/selftests/dma/dma_map_benchmark.c diff --git a/kernel/dma/Makefile b/kernel/dma/Makefile index dc755ab68aab..7aa6b26b1348 100644 --- a/kernel/dma/Makefile +++ b/kernel/dma/Makefile @@ -10,3 +10,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG) += debug.o obj-$(CONFIG_SWIOTLB) += swiotlb.o obj-$(CONFIG_DMA_COHERENT_POOL) += pool.o obj-$(CONFIG_DMA_REMAP) += remap.o +obj-$(CONFIG_DMA_MAP_BENCHMARK) += map_benchmark.o diff --git a/kernel/dma/map_benchmark.c b/kernel/dma/map_benchmark.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..16a5d7779d67 --- /dev/null +++ b/kernel/dma/map_benchmark.c @@ -0,0 +1,202 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only +/* + * Copyright (C) 2020 Hisilicon Limited. + */ + +#include <linux/kernel.h> +#include <linux/module.h> +#include <linux/device.h> +#include <linux/kthread.h> +#include <linux/slab.h> +#include <linux/debugfs.h> +#include <linux/dma-mapping.h> +#include <linux/timekeeping.h> +#include <linux/delay.h> +#include <linux/platform_device.h> + +#define DMA_MAP_BENCHMARK _IOWR('d', 1, struct map_benchmark) + +struct map_benchmark { + __u64 map_nsec; + __u64 unmap_nsec; + __u32 threads; /* how many threads will do map/unmap in parallel */ + __u32 seconds; /* how long the test will last */ + int node; /* which numa node this benchmark will run on */ + __u64 expansion[10]; /* For future use */ +}; + +struct map_benchmark_data { + struct map_benchmark bparam; + struct device *dev; + struct dentry *debugfs; + atomic64_t total_map_nsecs; + atomic64_t total_map_loops; + atomic64_t total_unmap_nsecs; + atomic64_t total_unmap_loops; +}; + +static int map_benchmark_thread(void *data) +{ + struct page *page; + dma_addr_t dma_addr; + struct map_benchmark_data *map = data; + int ret = 0; + + page = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL); + if (!page) + return -ENOMEM; + + while (!kthread_should_stop()) { + ktime_t map_stime, map_etime, unmap_stime, unmap_etime; + + map_stime = ktime_get(); + dma_addr = dma_map_page(map->dev, page, 0, PAGE_SIZE, DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL); + if (unlikely(dma_mapping_error(map->dev, dma_addr))) { + dev_err(map->dev, "dma_map_page failed\n"); + ret = -ENOMEM; + goto out; + } + map_etime = ktime_get(); + + unmap_stime = ktime_get(); + dma_unmap_single(map->dev, dma_addr, PAGE_SIZE, DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL); + unmap_etime = ktime_get(); + + atomic64_add((long long)ktime_to_ns(ktime_sub(map_etime, map_stime)), + &map->total_map_nsecs); + atomic64_add((long long)ktime_to_ns(ktime_sub(unmap_etime, unmap_stime)), + &map->total_unmap_nsecs); + atomic64_inc(&map->total_map_loops); + atomic64_inc(&map->total_unmap_loops); + } + +out: + __free_page(page); + return ret; +} + +static int do_map_benchmark(struct map_benchmark_data *map) +{ + struct task_struct **tsk; + int threads = map->bparam.threads; + int node = map->bparam.node; + const cpumask_t *cpu_mask = cpumask_of_node(node); + int ret = 0; + int i; + + tsk = kmalloc_array(threads, sizeof(tsk), GFP_KERNEL); + if (!tsk) + return -ENOMEM; + + get_device(map->dev); + + for (i = 0; i < threads; i++) { + tsk[i] = kthread_create_on_node(map_benchmark_thread, map, + map->bparam.node, "dma-map-benchmark/%d", i); + if (IS_ERR(tsk[i])) { + dev_err(map->dev, "create dma_map thread failed\n"); + return PTR_ERR(tsk[i]); + } + + if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE && node_online(node)) + kthread_bind_mask(tsk[i], cpu_mask); + + wake_up_process(tsk[i]); + } + + ssleep(map->bparam.seconds); + + /* wait for the completion of benchmark threads */ + for (i = 0; i < threads; i++) { + ret = kthread_stop(tsk[i]); + if (ret) + goto out; + } + + /* average map nsec and unmap nsec */ + map->bparam.map_nsec = atomic64_read(&map->total_map_nsecs) / + atomic64_read(&map->total_map_loops); + map->bparam.unmap_nsec = atomic64_read(&map->total_unmap_nsecs) / + atomic64_read(&map->total_unmap_loops); + +out: + put_device(map->dev); + kfree(tsk); + return ret; +} + +static long map_benchmark_ioctl(struct file *filep, unsigned int cmd, + unsigned long arg) +{ + struct map_benchmark_data *map = filep->private_data; + int ret; + + if (copy_from_user(&map->bparam, (void __user *)arg, sizeof(map->bparam))) + return -EFAULT; + + switch (cmd) { + case DMA_MAP_BENCHMARK: + ret = do_map_benchmark(map); + break; + default: + return -EINVAL; + } + + if (copy_to_user((void __user *)arg, &map->bparam, sizeof(map->bparam))) + return -EFAULT; + + return ret; +} + +static const struct file_operations map_benchmark_fops = { + .open = simple_open, + .unlocked_ioctl = map_benchmark_ioctl, +}; + +static int map_benchmark_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) +{ + struct dentry *entry; + struct map_benchmark_data *map; + + map = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*map), GFP_KERNEL); + if (!map) + return -ENOMEM; + + map->dev = &pdev->dev; + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, map); + + /* + * we only permit a device bound with this driver, 2nd probe + * will fail + */ + entry = debugfs_create_file("dma_map_benchmark", 0600, NULL, map, + &map_benchmark_fops); + if (IS_ERR(entry)) + return PTR_ERR(entry); + map->debugfs = entry; + + return 0; +} + +static int map_benchmark_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) +{ + struct map_benchmark_data *map = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); + + debugfs_remove(map->debugfs); + + return 0; +} + +static struct platform_driver map_benchmark_driver = { + .driver = { + .name = "dma_map_benchmark", + }, + .probe = map_benchmark_probe, + .remove = map_benchmark_remove, +}; + +module_platform_driver(map_benchmark_driver); + +MODULE_AUTHOR("Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>"); +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("dma_map benchmark driver"); +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
Nowadays, there are increasing requirements to benchmark the performance of dma_map and dma_unmap particually while the device is attached to an IOMMU. This patch enables the support. Users can run specified number of threads to do dma_map_page and dma_unmap_page on a specific NUMA node with the specified duration. Then dma_map_benchmark will calculate the average latency for map and unmap. A difficulity for this benchmark is that dma_map/unmap APIs must run on a particular device. Each device might have different backend of IOMMU or non-IOMMU. So we use the driver_override to bind dma_map_benchmark to a particual device by: echo dma_map_benchmark > /sys/bus/platform/devices/xxx/driver_override echo xxx > /sys/bus/platform/drivers/xxx/unbind echo xxx > /sys/bus/platform/drivers/dma_map_benchmark/bind For this moment, it supports platform device only, PCI device will also be supported afterwards. Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Cc: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com> Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com> --- kernel/dma/Kconfig | 8 ++ kernel/dma/Makefile | 1 + kernel/dma/map_benchmark.c | 202 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 211 insertions(+) create mode 100644 kernel/dma/map_benchmark.c