[dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3 1/6] mem: add function for checking memsegs IOVAs addresses
Eelco Chaudron
echaudro at redhat.com
Tue Jul 10 12:06:29 CEST 2018
On 10 Jul 2018, at 11:34, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Eelco Chaudron <echaudro at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4 Jul 2018, at 14:53, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
>>
>> A device can suffer addressing limitations. This functions checks
>>> memsegs have iovas within the supported range based on dma mask.
>>>
>>> PMD should use this during initialization if supported devices
>>> suffer addressing limitations, returning an error if this function
>>> returns memsegs out of range.
>>>
>>> Another potential usage is for emulated IOMMU hardware with
>>> addressing
>>> limitations.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero at netronome.com>
>>> Acked-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov at intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memory.c | 33
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_memory.h | 3 +++
>>> lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map | 1 +
>>> 3 files changed, 37 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memory.c
>>> b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memory.c
>>> index fc6c44d..f5efebe 100644
>>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memory.c
>>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_memory.c
>>> @@ -109,6 +109,39 @@
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> +/* check memseg iovas are within the required range based on dma
>>> mask */
>>> +int
>>> +rte_eal_check_dma_mask(uint8_t maskbits)
>>> +{
>>> +
>>> + const struct rte_mem_config *mcfg;
>>> + uint64_t mask;
>>> + int i;
>>> +
>>>
>>
>> I think we should add some sanity check to the input maskbits, i.e.
>> [64,0)
>> or [64, 32]? What would be a reasonable lower bound.
>>
>>
> This is not a user's API, so any invocation will be reviewed, but I
> guess
> adding a sanity check here does not harm.
>
> Not sure about lower bound but upper should 64, although it does not
> make
> sense but it is safe. Lower bound is not so problematic.
>
>
>>
>> + /* create dma mask */
>>> + mask = ~((1ULL << maskbits) - 1);
>>> +
>>> + /* get pointer to global configuration */
>>> + mcfg = rte_eal_get_configuration()->mem_config;
>>> +
>>> + for (i = 0; i < RTE_MAX_MEMSEG; i++) {
>>> + if (mcfg->memseg[i].addr == NULL)
>>> + break;
Looking at some other code, it looks like NULL entries might exists. So
should a continue; rather than a break; be used here?
>>> +
>>> + if (mcfg->memseg[i].iova & mask) {
>>> + RTE_LOG(INFO, EAL,
>>> + "memseg[%d] iova %"PRIx64" out of
>>> range:\n",
>>> + i, mcfg->memseg[i].iova);
>>> +
>>> + RTE_LOG(INFO, EAL, "\tusing dma mask
>>> %"PRIx64"\n",
>>> + mask);
>>> + return -1;
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> /* return the number of memory channels */
>>> unsigned rte_memory_get_nchannel(void)
>>> {
>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_memory.h
>>> b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_memory.h
>>> index 80a8fc0..b2a0168 100644
>>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_memory.h
>>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_memory.h
>>> @@ -209,6 +209,9 @@ struct rte_memseg {
>>> */
>>> unsigned rte_memory_get_nrank(void);
>>>
>>> +/* check memsegs iovas are within a range based on dma mask */
>>> +int rte_eal_check_dma_mask(uint8_t maskbits);
>>> +
>>> /**
>>> * Drivers based on uio will not load unless physical
>>> * addresses are obtainable. It is only possible to get
>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map
>>> b/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map
>>> index f4f46c1..aa6cf87 100644
>>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map
>>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/rte_eal_version.map
>>> @@ -184,6 +184,7 @@ DPDK_17.11 {
>>>
>>> rte_eal_create_uio_dev;
>>> rte_bus_get_iommu_class;
>>> + rte_eal_check_dma_mask;
>>> rte_eal_has_pci;
>>> rte_eal_iova_mode;
>>> rte_eal_mbuf_default_mempool_ops;
>>> --
>>> 1.9.1
>>>
>>
More information about the dev
mailing list