[RFC] Experimental DMA-BUF Device Heaps

Sun Aug 23 20:46:37 UTC 2020

Hi James,

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 01:04:43PM -0700, James Jones wrote:
> On 8/20/20 1:15 AM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-08-17 at 20:49 -0700, James Jones wrote:
> >> On 8/17/20 8:18 AM, Brian Starkey wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 02:22:46PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> >>>> This heap is basically a wrapper around DMA-API dma_alloc_attrs,
> >>>> which will allocate memory suitable for the given device.
> >>>>
> >>>> The implementation is mostly a port of the Contiguous Videobuf2
> >>>> memory allocator (see videobuf2/videobuf2-dma-contig.c)
> >>>> over to the DMA-BUF Heap interface.
> >>>>
> >>>> The intention of this allocator is to provide applications
> >>>> with a more system-agnostic API: the only thing the application
> >>>> needs to know is which device to get the buffer for.
> >>>>
> >>>> Whether the buffer is backed by CMA, IOMMU or a DMA Pool
> >>>> is unknown to the application.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not really expecting this patch to be correct or even
> >>>> a good idea, but just submitting it to start a discussion on DMA-BUF
> >>>> heap discovery and negotiation.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> My initial reaction is that I thought dmabuf heaps are meant for use
> >>> to allocate buffers for sharing across devices, which doesn't fit very
> >>> well with having per-device heaps.
> >>>
> >>> For single-device allocations, would using the buffer allocation
> >>> functionality of that device's native API be better in most
> >>> cases? (Some other possibly relevant discussion at [1])
> >>>
> >>> I can see that this can save some boilerplate for devices that want
> >>> to expose private chunks of memory, but might it also lead to 100
> >>> aliases for the system's generic coherent memory pool?
> >>>
> >>> I wonder if a set of helpers to allow devices to expose whatever they
> >>> want with minimal effort would be better.
> >>
> >> I'm rather interested on where this goes, as I was toying with using
> >> some sort of heap ID as a basis for a "device-local" constraint in the
> >> memory constraints proposals Simon and I will be discussing at XDC this
> >> year.  It would be rather elegant if there was one type of heap ID used
> >> universally throughout the kernel that could provide a unique handle for
> >> the shared system memory heap(s), as well as accelerator-local heaps on
> >> fancy NICs, GPUs, NN accelerators, capture devices, etc. so apps could
> >> negotiate a location among themselves.  This patch seems to be a step
> >> towards that in a way, but I agree it would be counterproductive if a
> >> bunch of devices that were using the same underlying system memory ended
> >> up each getting their own heap ID just because they used some SW
> >> framework that worked that way.
> >>
> >> Would appreciate it if you could send along a pointer to your BoF if it
> >> happens!
> > 
> > Here is it:
> > 
> > https://linuxplumbersconf.org/event/7/contributions/818/
> > 
> > It would be great to see you there and discuss this,
> > given I was hoping we could talk about how to meet a
> > userspace allocator library expectations as well.
> 
> Thanks!  I hadn't registered for LPC and it looks like it's sold out, 
> but I'll try to watch the live stream.
> 
> This is very interesting, in that it looks like we're both trying to 
> solve roughly the same set of problems but approaching it from different 
> angles.  From what I gather, your approach is that a "heap" encompasses 
> all the allocation constraints a device may have.
> 
> The approach Simon Ser and I are tossing around so far is somewhat 
> different, but may potentially leverage dma-buf heaps a bit as well.
> 
> Our approach looks more like what I described at XDC a few years ago, 
> where memory constraints for a given device's usage of an image are 
> exposed up to applications, which can then somehow perform boolean 
> intersection/union operations on them to arrive at a common set of 
> constraints that describe something compatible with all the devices & 
> usages desired (or fail to do so, and fall back to copying things around 
> presumably).  I believe this is more flexible than your initial proposal 
> in that devices often support multiple usages (E.g., different formats, 
> different proprietary layouts represented by format modifiers, etc.), 
> and it avoids adding a combinatorial number of heaps to manage that.
> 
> In my view, heaps are more like blobs of memory that can be allocated 
> from in various different ways to satisfy constraints.  I realize heaps 
> mean something specific in the dma-buf heap design (specifically, 
> something closer to an association between an "allocation mechanism" and 
> "physical memory"), but I hope we don't have massive heap/allocator 
> mechanism proliferation due to constraints alone.  Perhaps some 
> constraints, such as contiguous memory or device-local memory, are 
> properly expressed as a specific heap, but consider the proliferation 
> implied by even that simple pair of examples: How do you express 
> contiguous device-local memory?  Do you need to spawn two heaps on the 
> underlying device-local memory, one for contiguous allocations and one 
> for non-contiguous allocations?  Seems excessive.
> 
> Of course, our approach also has downsides and is still being worked on. 
>   For example, it works best in an ideal world where all the allocators 
> available understand all the constraints that exist.

Shouldn't allocators be decoupled of constraints ? In my imagination I
see devices exposing constraints, and allocators exposing parameters,
with a userspace library to reconcile the constraints and produce
allocator parameters from them.

> Dealing with a 
> reality where there are probably a handful of allocators, another 
> handful of userspace libraries and APIs, and still more applications 
> trying to make use of all this is one of the larger remaining challenges 
> of the design.
> 
> We'll present our work at XDC 2020.  Hope you can check that out as well!
> 
> >>> 1. https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/57062477-30e7-a3de-6723-a50d03a402c4@kapsi.fi/
> >>>
> >>>> Given Plumbers is just a couple weeks from now, I've submitted
> >>>> a BoF proposal to discuss this, as perhaps it would make
> >>>> sense to discuss this live?
> >>>>
> >>>> Not-signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel at collabora.com>

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart