[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Memory allocation/sharing when DMA operations used..

From: Markus Kode Kaarn
Subject: Re: Memory allocation/sharing when DMA operations used..
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:22:40 -0600
User-agent: KMail/1.7.2

On Friday 01 April 2005 03:22, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> Markus Kode Kaarn wrote:
> > Hey everybody,
> >
> > For last few days i came whith idea of how Device-Drivers, should handle
> > DMA requests. If DMA channels access can be considered as a priviledge of
> > only PLM's, or even centralized DMA driver(which is prefered), through
> > which will all DMA requests will be handled. First, i think DD's, that
> > receives DMA request from user for the first time, should allocate/map
> > memory for it selt by requesting it from physmem. Then share this region
> > of memory whith task(as far as i can think these will be device drivers)
> > that requests DMA. There would be read-only and the writeable memory
> > shared, every of which is decided to be given whereas task want to
> > receive(read) data, or send(write) it.
> > Here i can see a good decision on that only a DMA driver should allocate
> > and share memory regions whith tasks requesting the operations. Because
> > allowing user to supply a buffer is not far clever, cause user can die or
> > give up its pages back to physmem, and at time of receive-operation from
> > DMA channel memory region could be used by some other task.
> >
> > This probably can apply not only to DMA operations. Some system part that
> > provide service(s) to many tasks may can come whith this approach.
> >
> > At the moment i don't know much about the memory allocation/sharing in
> > hurd-l4 and can't be more specific on this, or supply code.
> >
> > Comments please.
> Hi,
> I'm not very familiar with DMA, but I remembered that only certain pages
> can be used for DMA.  Or was that only for ISA?  Anyway, if that is not
> the case, it becomes a lot simpler.
> The L4-Hurd design uses the idea to give the costs to the user (which is
> a program in this context).  This is true in many places, in particular
> for memory.  For example, if a client wants to read data from a
> filesystem, it supplies a page to the filesystem, which then fills it
> with data.
> You suggest to leave that design for DMA.  If there are special
> "DMA-pages", that doesn't sound strange: Otherwise a DoS-attack would be
> possible by allocating many DMA pages.  Of course there could be a quota
> system, which might be enough to prevent this.  If all pages can be used
> for DMA, I don't see any reason not to use the normal approach of the
> client providing the memory for the operation.
> You say the user can die on you, leaving a big mess.  This is no
> problem, as the container is shared by the driver and the user.  If the
> user dies, the container is not deallocated until the driver lets go of
> it.  It shouldn't do that before the DMA operation is finished.  It is
> not unusual for device drivers to wait with freeing resources after
> client death until the device has finished its operation.  This is not a
> big problem.  I think it should not be a reason to leave a good design
> decision.
> If I misunderstood you, please rephrase.
> Thanks,
> Bas

No, everything you said is ok to me. Now i'm curious of if pages are shared

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]