hw_params function and OSS emulation

hw_params function and OSS emulation

[Timur Tabi]

I'm working on an ASoC driver, and I noticed that with OSS emulation enabled, 
my snd_pcm_ops.hw_params and and snd_pcm_ops.hw_free are called multiple times 
when an OSS driver uses the OSS emulation.  In my case, .hw_params is called 
*four* times, each time with a different DMA buffer size and number of periods.

The problem is that my driver allocates a DMA buffer in my .hw_params 
function.  For now, I have it deallocate the buffers at the top of the 
function and then allocate new ones based on the new hw_params values.

This is really annoying.  So I have a few questions:

1) Is there any way this can be fixed?  Can't the OSS emulation code figure 
out what it needs and wait until it's done before it calls .hw_params?

As a solution to the DMA buffer deallocate/reallocate hack I'm using, would it 
be okay to move the actual allocations to snd_pcm_ops.prepare()?  My 
.hw_params function will collect the relevant data and keep them in some 
private structure.  Then when .prepare() is called, I do the actual buffer 
allocation.

2) Can I assume that .prepare() is called only once?

3) Can I assume that .hw_params() is never called after .prepare() is called?

-- 
Timur Tabi
Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale

Re: hw_params function and OSS emulation

[Trent Piepho]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Timur Tabi wrote:
> I'm working on an ASoC driver, and I noticed that with OSS emulation enabled,
> my snd_pcm_ops.hw_params and and snd_pcm_ops.hw_free are called multiple times
> when an OSS driver uses the OSS emulation.  In my case, .hw_params is called
> *four* times, each time with a different DMA buffer size and number of periods.
>
> The problem is that my driver allocates a DMA buffer in my .hw_params
> function.  For now, I have it deallocate the buffers at the top of the
> function and then allocate new ones based on the new hw_params values.
>
> This is really annoying.  So I have a few questions:
>
> 1) Is there any way this can be fixed?  Can't the OSS emulation code figure
> out what it needs and wait until it's done before it calls .hw_params?
>
> As a solution to the DMA buffer deallocate/reallocate hack I'm using, would it
> be okay to move the actual allocations to snd_pcm_ops.prepare()?  My
> .hw_params function will collect the relevant data and keep them in some
> private structure.  Then when .prepare() is called, I do the actual buffer
> allocation.
>
> 2) Can I assume that .prepare() is called only once?
>

The drivers docs say:
	The difference from hw_params is that the prepare callback will be
	called at each time snd_pcm_prepare() is called, i.e. when
	recovered after underruns, etc.

	Be careful that this callback will be called many times at each set
	up, too.

> 3) Can I assume that .hw_params() is never called after .prepare() is called?

Good question!  When prepare is called multiple times, will the hw_params
values be the same each time?  i.e., could one allocate memory and setup IOMMU
resources for the dma buffer the first time it is called, then avoid doing
so on subsequent calls?

Re: hw_params function and OSS emulation

[Takashi Iwai]

At Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:15:16 -0500,
Timur Tabi wrote:
> 
> I'm working on an ASoC driver, and I noticed that with OSS emulation enabled, 
> my snd_pcm_ops.hw_params and and snd_pcm_ops.hw_free are called multiple times 
> when an OSS driver uses the OSS emulation.  In my case, .hw_params is called 
> *four* times, each time with a different DMA buffer size and number of periods.
> 
> The problem is that my driver allocates a DMA buffer in my .hw_params 
> function.  For now, I have it deallocate the buffers at the top of the 
> function and then allocate new ones based on the new hw_params values.
> 
> This is really annoying.  So I have a few questions:
> 
> 1) Is there any way this can be fixed?  Can't the OSS emulation code figure 
> out what it needs and wait until it's done before it calls .hw_params?

It's hard to fix.  There is no distinct between hw_params setup and
prepare setup in the OSS API.  In the OSS API, the device has to be
always ready for use at any time.  And, OSS API doesn't define the
default parameters (there are tacit understandings, though).  Because
of these requirements, the emulation needs to set up hw_params and
prepare at each time you open, or at each time any parameter-change
(OSS) ioctl is called.

> As a solution to the DMA buffer deallocate/reallocate hack I'm using, would it 
> be okay to move the actual allocations to snd_pcm_ops.prepare()?  My 
> .hw_params function will collect the relevant data and keep them in some 
> private structure.  Then when .prepare() is called, I do the actual buffer 
> allocation.

It's no good idea because the prepare callback _is_ the one that is
more frequently called in ALSA API than hw_params.

> 2) Can I assume that .prepare() is called only once?

No.  It's called to restart the stream after xrun, suspend/resume,
etc.  hw_params isn't called for restarting the stream.

> 3) Can I assume that .hw_params() is never called after .prepare() is called?

The call is allowed.


Takashi

Re: hw_params function and OSS emulation

[Timur Tabi]

Takashi Iwai wrote:

>> 3) Can I assume that .hw_params() is never called after .prepare() is called?
> 
> The call is allowed.

Ugh, so in other words, .hw_params() and .prepare() can be called any number 
of times in any order?  That makes it impossible to optimize the creation of 
the DMA buffer.  Currently, I have this code at the top of my .hwparams() 
function:

	if (substream->dma_buffer.addr) {
		dma_free_coherent(substream->pcm->dev,
			runtime_data->ld_buf_size, runtime_data->link,
			runtime_data->ld_buf_phys);
		snd_dma_free_pages(&substream->dma_buffer);
	}


When I look at the AT91 ASOC driver as an example, I see it allocates a DMA 
buffer of the maximum allowed size (currently hard-coded to 32KB) in the .new 
function.  To me, this is cheating, but it appears to be the only way to avoid 
doing what I'm currently doing.  Is this the recommend approach?

-- 
Timur Tabi
Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale

Re: hw_params function and OSS emulation

[Takashi Iwai]

At Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:28:31 -0500,
Timur Tabi wrote:
> 
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> 
> >> 3) Can I assume that .hw_params() is never called after .prepare() is called?
> > 
> > The call is allowed.
> 
> Ugh, so in other words, .hw_params() and .prepare() can be called any number 
> of times in any order?

Well, prepare is always after hw_params.  But the number of times is
unlimited.


>  That makes it impossible to optimize the creation of 
> the DMA buffer.  Currently, I have this code at the top of my .hwparams() 
> function:
> 
> 	if (substream->dma_buffer.addr) {
> 		dma_free_coherent(substream->pcm->dev,
> 			runtime_data->ld_buf_size, runtime_data->link,
> 			runtime_data->ld_buf_phys);
> 		snd_dma_free_pages(&substream->dma_buffer);
> 	}
> 
> 
> When I look at the AT91 ASOC driver as an example, I see it allocates a DMA 
> buffer of the maximum allowed size (currently hard-coded to 32KB) in the .new 
> function.  To me, this is cheating, but it appears to be the only way to avoid 
> doing what I'm currently doing.  Is this the recommend approach?

Well, the buffer size is determined dynamically, and apps may want to
change sometimes the buffer size during the run.  So, the  buffer
pre-allocation of fixed size is a workaround.

Alternatively, you can remember the last allocated buffer-size and
re-use the same buffer if the requested size is less than it.
Since the buffer size change won't happen _so often_ (even via OSS
emulation), this would work well in practice, too.


Takashi

Re: hw_params function and OSS emulation

[Timur Tabi]

Takashi Iwai wrote:

> Alternatively, you can remember the last allocated buffer-size and
> re-use the same buffer if the requested size is less than it.
> Since the buffer size change won't happen _so often_ (even via OSS
> emulation), this would work well in practice, too.

Hmm... Neither of these options is really that great.  I think I like the idea 
of pre-allocating the buffer in .new.  What is a reasonable maximum size for 
the DMA buffer?  32KB seems small to me.  When I was testing OSS emulation, 
the first call to .hw_params passed a DMA buffer size of over 1MB!

-- 
Timur Tabi
Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale

Re: hw_params function and OSS emulation

[Takashi Iwai]

At Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:02:11 -0500,
Timur Tabi wrote:
> 
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> 
> > Alternatively, you can remember the last allocated buffer-size and
> > re-use the same buffer if the requested size is less than it.
> > Since the buffer size change won't happen _so often_ (even via OSS
> > emulation), this would work well in practice, too.
> 
> Hmm... Neither of these options is really that great.

... but no other way :)  The buffer size is dynamically configurable,
per design.  That's all.

>  I think I like the idea 
> of pre-allocating the buffer in .new.  What is a reasonable maximum size for 
> the DMA buffer?  32KB seems small to me.

AFAIK, 64kB seems sufficient in most cases.

>  When I was testing OSS emulation, 
> the first call to .hw_params passed a DMA buffer size of over 1MB!

The driver should deny a too large size if it's unrealistic.
But 1MB is realistic for many systems.  So, the number depends on the
system.


Takashi

Re: hw_params function and OSS emulation

[Timur Tabi]

Takashi Iwai wrote:

> The driver should deny a too large size if it's unrealistic.
> But 1MB is realistic for many systems.  So, the number depends on the
> system.

Are there any popular applications that really want a DMA buffer larger than 64KB?

On a side note, I notice that ALSA has some scatter-gather support.  If an 
application uses S/G, I presume the concept of a DMA buffer size doesn't even 
apply?

-- 
Timur Tabi
Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale

Re: hw_params function and OSS emulation

[Takashi Iwai]

At Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:48:44 -0500,
Timur Tabi wrote:
> 
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> 
> > The driver should deny a too large size if it's unrealistic.
> > But 1MB is realistic for many systems.  So, the number depends on the
> > system.
> 
> Are there any popular applications that really want a DMA buffer
> larger than 64KB? 

It's something like an urban legend: the bigger, the better.
A big buffer seems preferred for applications that require the robust
operation.  Such a requirement makes a little bit sense although
multi-threading and adjusting the RT-priority would give you far
better result.

> On a side note, I notice that ALSA has some scatter-gather support.  If an 
> application uses S/G, I presume the concept of a DMA buffer size doesn't even 
> apply?

The SG-buffer isn't for applications but for drivers.  From the
application viewpoint, the buffer looks linear.


Takashi

Re: hw_params function and OSS emulation

[Timur Tabi]

Takashi Iwai wrote:

>> On a side note, I notice that ALSA has some scatter-gather support.  If an 
>> application uses S/G, I presume the concept of a DMA buffer size doesn't even 
>> apply?
> 
> The SG-buffer isn't for applications but for drivers.  From the
> application viewpoint, the buffer looks linear.

Yes, but in SG, the application allocates the DMA buffer, and a list of 
physical addresses is passed to the driver.  Normally, the driver allocates 
the DMA buffer and passes a virtual address to the app.  Therefore, the DMA 
buffer processing for SG is completely different than for driver-allocated 
buffers, including the concept of a DMA buffer length.

For normal DMA buffers, I would specify a limit of 64KB just because of the 
problems with multiple calls to .hw_params() and .prepare().  I could support 
much larger DMA buffers, but not with the way ALSA calls the driver.

For SG, I haven't looked at the API, but I assume that the ALSA gives a list 
of physical addresses to the driver only *once*.  In this case, my DMA buffer 
limitations are much larger, since I just give the list of addresses to my 
hardware and it does the rest.  So I would hope that the application *doesn't* 
use the DMA buffer size limit in my snd_pcm_hardware structure.

-- 
Timur Tabi
Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale

Re: hw_params function and OSS emulation

[Takashi Iwai]

At Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:36:43 -0500,
Timur Tabi wrote:
> 
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> 
> >> On a side note, I notice that ALSA has some scatter-gather support.  If an 
> >> application uses S/G, I presume the concept of a DMA buffer size doesn't even 
> >> apply?
> > 
> > The SG-buffer isn't for applications but for drivers.  From the
> > application viewpoint, the buffer looks linear.
> 
> Yes, but in SG, the application allocates the DMA buffer, and a list of 
> physical addresses is passed to the driver.

Err, usually, application = user-space application.  Do you mean
really this?


Takashi

Re: hw_params function and OSS emulation

[Timur Tabi]

Takashi Iwai wrote:

> Err, usually, application = user-space application.  Do you mean
> really this?

Yes.  The application allocates a buffer, locks it down, and passes it to the 
kernel.  Since the buffer was allocated in user space, it is virtual 
contiguous but not physically contiguous, hence the need for a list of 
physical addresses.  To the hardware, the buffer appears as a collection of 
scattered buffers.  Hence, scatter/gather.

Like I said, I haven't look at the ALSA API for S/G, so I may be talking about 
an implementation of S/G that does not apply to ALSA.

-- 
Timur Tabi
Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale

Re: hw_params function and OSS emulation

[Takashi Iwai]

At Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:43:40 -0500,
Timur Tabi wrote:
> 
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> 
> > Err, usually, application = user-space application.  Do you mean
> > really this?
> 
> Yes.  The application allocates a buffer, locks it down, and passes it to the 
> kernel.  Since the buffer was allocated in user space, it is virtual 
> contiguous but not physically contiguous, hence the need for a list of 
> physical addresses.  To the hardware, the buffer appears as a collection of 
> scattered buffers.  Hence, scatter/gather.

Hm, then it must be a really special application.  I've never seen
linux audio apps doing such things...

The problem in your scenario is that the buffers allocated from
user-space are not always DMA-able for devices, thus not always usable
for the hardware.


> Like I said, I haven't look at the ALSA API for S/G, so I may be talking about 
> an implementation of S/G that does not apply to ALSA.

The ALSA SG-buffer helper is simply to allocate individual pages and
gather as a virtually linear buffer.  From the user-space, it's
nothing but a normal linear buffer.

The helper is specific to devices that can handle SG-buffers with
kernel PAGE grains, and for architectures with vmap support.

Anyway, the hw_params implementation is basically free for drivers.
The driver can use its own SG-buffer handler if the given SG-buffer
helper doesn't match with the requirement.


Takashi

Re: hw_params function and OSS emulation

[Timur Tabi]

Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:43:40 -0500,
> Timur Tabi wrote:
>> Takashi Iwai wrote:
>>
>>> Err, usually, application = user-space application.  Do you mean
>>> really this?
>> Yes.  The application allocates a buffer, locks it down, and passes it to the 
>> kernel.  Since the buffer was allocated in user space, it is virtual 
>> contiguous but not physically contiguous, hence the need for a list of 
>> physical addresses.  To the hardware, the buffer appears as a collection of 
>> scattered buffers.  Hence, scatter/gather.
> 
> Hm, then it must be a really special application.  I've never seen
> linux audio apps doing such things...

That could be.  I'm using a generic definition of S/G.  Perhaps I should read 
the ALSA API before posting further. :-)

> The problem in your scenario is that the buffers allocated from
> user-space are not always DMA-able for devices, thus not always usable
> for the hardware.

It's possible for an application to allocate DMA-able memory.  I think you 
need to allocate it normally than use mlock() on it, but it's been a while so 
I'm not sure.

> The ALSA SG-buffer helper is simply to allocate individual pages and
> gather as a virtually linear buffer.  From the user-space, it's
> nothing but a normal linear buffer.

So what is the value of having the driver allocate a physically discontiguous 
buffer when it can easily allocate a contiguous one?  Are there systems where 
allocating a 32KB physically-contiguous buffer is too hard?

-- 
Timur Tabi
Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale

Re: hw_params function and OSS emulation

[Takashi Iwai]

At Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:13:08 -0500,
Timur Tabi wrote:
> 
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:43:40 -0500,
> > Timur Tabi wrote:
> >> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >>
> >>> Err, usually, application = user-space application.  Do you mean
> >>> really this?
> >> Yes.  The application allocates a buffer, locks it down, and passes it to the 
> >> kernel.  Since the buffer was allocated in user space, it is virtual 
> >> contiguous but not physically contiguous, hence the need for a list of 
> >> physical addresses.  To the hardware, the buffer appears as a collection of 
> >> scattered buffers.  Hence, scatter/gather.
> > 
> > Hm, then it must be a really special application.  I've never seen
> > linux audio apps doing such things...
> 
> That could be.  I'm using a generic definition of S/G.  Perhaps I should read 
> the ALSA API before posting further. :-)

Well, a generic definition of SG in the "kernel" driver area is what
the kernel does, not what user-space does :)

> > The problem in your scenario is that the buffers allocated from
> > user-space are not always DMA-able for devices, thus not always usable
> > for the hardware.
> 
> It's possible for an application to allocate DMA-able memory.  I think you 
> need to allocate it normally than use mlock() on it, but it's been a while so 
> I'm not sure.

The DMA-able area is sometimes limited (especally with old hardwares).
For example, ISA requires the memory below 16MB where are not usable
via normal syscalls from the user-space.

> > The ALSA SG-buffer helper is simply to allocate individual pages and
> > gather as a virtually linear buffer.  From the user-space, it's
> > nothing but a normal linear buffer.
> 
> So what is the value of having the driver allocate a physically discontiguous 
> buffer when it can easily allocate a contiguous one?  Are there systems where 
> allocating a 32KB physically-contiguous buffer is too hard?

Sometimes even 32kB allocation fails when the whole memory is
fragmented.

And, as you noticed, apps sometimes want really large area like over
MB.  Contiguous pages in such a size are hard to allocate in the later
stage.


Takashi

Re: hw_params function and OSS emulation

[Trent Piepho]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:43:40 -0500,
> Timur Tabi wrote:
> >
> > Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >
> > > Err, usually, application = user-space application.  Do you mean
> > > really this?
> >
> > Yes.  The application allocates a buffer, locks it down, and passes it to the
> > kernel.  Since the buffer was allocated in user space, it is virtual
> > contiguous but not physically contiguous, hence the need for a list of
> > physical addresses.  To the hardware, the buffer appears as a collection of
> > scattered buffers.  Hence, scatter/gather.
>
> Hm, then it must be a really special application.  I've never seen
> linux audio apps doing such things...

v4l2 suppoorts both kinds of memory mapped dma.  Normally, the dma buffer
is allocated by the kernel and the user space application is given an
address to memory map.  This way DMA-able memory can be allocated.  For
some device, e.g. zr36060, it might even need to be physically contiguous.

The other kind is called "user pointer" and in this case user space
allocates the memory and passes a pointer to the kernel.  It's defined in
the API, but I think few (any?) driver actually support it. One could use
this to place the dma buffer in a shared memory segment or some other
reason the application wants the buffer at a certain address.

Re: hw_params function and OSS emulation

[Trent Piepho]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:28:31 -0500,
> Timur Tabi wrote:
> >
> > Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >
> > >> 3) Can I assume that .hw_params() is never called after .prepare() is called?
> > >
> > > The call is allowed.
> >
> > Ugh, so in other words, .hw_params() and .prepare() can be called any number
> > of times in any order?
>
> Well, prepare is always after hw_params.  But the number of times is
> unlimited.

Does that mean that once prepare is called, the hw_params can no longer
change?  Or do you mean that hw_params must always be called before
prepare, but it's possible to call hw_params again after prepare, provided
one then calls prepare again before trigger?

If that is the case, wouldn't it work to allocate the DMA buffer the first
time prepare is called?

Re: hw_params function and OSS emulation

[Takashi Iwai]

At Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:25:04 -0700 (PDT),
Trent Piepho wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:28:31 -0500,
> > Timur Tabi wrote:
> > >
> > > Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > >
> > > >> 3) Can I assume that .hw_params() is never called after .prepare() is called?
> > > >
> > > > The call is allowed.
> > >
> > > Ugh, so in other words, .hw_params() and .prepare() can be called any number
> > > of times in any order?
> >
> > Well, prepare is always after hw_params.  But the number of times is
> > unlimited.
> 
> Does that mean that once prepare is called, the hw_params can no longer
> change?  Or do you mean that hw_params must always be called before
> prepare, but it's possible to call hw_params again after prepare, provided
> one then calls prepare again before trigger?

The latter case.


> If that is the case, wouldn't it work to allocate the DMA buffer the first
> time prepare is called?

The buffer allocation in prepare callback would actually do work.
I've never mentioned that it doesn't work.  It's just not
recommended, simply because the prepare is called more often than
hw_params even without changing the parameters.


Takashi

Re: hw_params function and OSS emulation

[Timur Tabi]

Takashi Iwai wrote:

> The buffer allocation in prepare callback would actually do work.
> I've never mentioned that it doesn't work.  It's just not
> recommended, simply because the prepare is called more often than
> hw_params even without changing the parameters.

What is the driver supposed to do on the second call to .prepare()?  In other 
words, what is the point of calling it multiple times in a row?  Once my 
driver is prepared to start, how could it become more prepared?

-- 
Timur Tabi
Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale

Re: hw_params function and OSS emulation

[Takashi Iwai]

At Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:08:49 -0500,
Timur Tabi wrote:
> 
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> 
> > The buffer allocation in prepare callback would actually do work.
> > I've never mentioned that it doesn't work.  It's just not
> > recommended, simply because the prepare is called more often than
> > hw_params even without changing the parameters.
> 
> What is the driver supposed to do on the second call to .prepare()?  In other 
> words, what is the point of calling it multiple times in a row?  Once my 
> driver is prepared to start, how could it become more prepared?

The purpose of prepare callback is to make the PCM stream ready to
start.  (The trigger callbacks are supposed to be just triggering, not
preparing the stream.)
Usually, once after the PCM is triggered, the registers are no
longer as same as the beginning.  If you want to stop and restart the
stream, you'll very likely to reset the registers again.  That's why
prepare is called again.  (Or, your driver is always go-or-die? :)


Takashi

Re: hw_params function and OSS emulation

[Timur Tabi]

Takashi Iwai wrote:

> The purpose of prepare callback is to make the PCM stream ready to
> start.  (The trigger callbacks are supposed to be just triggering, not
> preparing the stream.)
> Usually, once after the PCM is triggered, the registers are no
> longer as same as the beginning.  If you want to stop and restart the
> stream, you'll very likely to reset the registers again.  That's why
> prepare is called again.  (Or, your driver is always go-or-die? :)

I thought you meant that the .prepare() function can be called multiple times 
*in a row*, like .hw_params() is.  But I guess that's not what you meant.

-- 
Timur Tabi
Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale