[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [RFC] virtio video driver
Hi Keiichi,
On Mittwoch, 25. Dezember 2019 12:38:55 CET Keiichi Watanabe wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> Thanks for sharing the driver implementation.
> Since the virtio protocol specification is still under discussion in
> virtio-dev@ ML separately, let me add comments only about
> implementation that are irrelevant to the protocol details.
> Please find my comments inline.
>
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 1:33 AM Dmitry Sepp <Dmitry.Sepp@opensynergy.com>
wrote:
> > From: Kiran Pawar <kiran.pawar@opensynergy.com>
> >
> > This adds a Virtio based video driver for video streaming device that
> > operates input and/or output data buffers to share video devices with
> > several guests. The current implementation consist of V4L2 based video
> > driver supporting video functions of decoder and encoder. This can be
> > extended for other functions e.g. processor, capture and output.
> > The device uses descriptor structures to advertise and negotiate stream
> > formats and controls. This allows the driver to modify the processing
> > logic of the device on a per stream basis.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Sepp <Dmitry.Sepp@opensynergy.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Kiran Pawar <Kiran.Pawar@opensynergy.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Nikolay Martyanov <Nikolay.Martyanov@opensynergy.com>
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/media/Kconfig | 1 +
> > drivers/media/Makefile | 2 +
> > drivers/media/virtio/Kconfig | 11 +
> > drivers/media/virtio/Makefile | 12 +
> > drivers/media/virtio/virtio_video.h | 372 +++++++
> > drivers/media/virtio/virtio_video_caps.c | 618 +++++++++++
> > drivers/media/virtio/virtio_video_dec.c | 947 +++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/media/virtio/virtio_video_dec.h | 30 +
> > drivers/media/virtio/virtio_video_device.c | 747 +++++++++++++
> > drivers/media/virtio/virtio_video_driver.c | 278 +++++
> > drivers/media/virtio/virtio_video_enc.c | 1124 ++++++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/media/virtio/virtio_video_enc.h | 30 +
> > drivers/media/virtio/virtio_video_vq.c | 950 +++++++++++++++++
> > include/uapi/linux/virtio_ids.h | 2 +
> > include/uapi/linux/virtio_video.h | 456 ++++++++
> > 15 files changed, 5580 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 drivers/media/virtio/Kconfig
> > create mode 100644 drivers/media/virtio/Makefile
> > create mode 100644 drivers/media/virtio/virtio_video.h
> > create mode 100644 drivers/media/virtio/virtio_video_caps.c
> > create mode 100644 drivers/media/virtio/virtio_video_dec.c
> > create mode 100644 drivers/media/virtio/virtio_video_dec.h
> > create mode 100644 drivers/media/virtio/virtio_video_device.c
> > create mode 100644 drivers/media/virtio/virtio_video_driver.c
> > create mode 100644 drivers/media/virtio/virtio_video_enc.c
> > create mode 100644 drivers/media/virtio/virtio_video_enc.h
> > create mode 100644 drivers/media/virtio/virtio_video_vq.c
> > create mode 100644 include/uapi/linux/virtio_video.h
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/Kconfig b/drivers/media/Kconfig
> > index b36a41332867..cc95806e8f8b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/media/Kconfig
> > @@ -170,6 +170,7 @@ source "drivers/media/pci/Kconfig"
> >
> > source "drivers/media/platform/Kconfig"
> > source "drivers/media/mmc/Kconfig"
> > source "drivers/media/radio/Kconfig"
> >
> > +source "drivers/media/virtio/Kconfig"
> >
> > comment "Supported FireWire (IEEE 1394) Adapters"
> >
> > depends on DVB_CORE && FIREWIRE
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/Makefile b/drivers/media/Makefile
> > index f215f0a89f9e..9517a6f724d1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/Makefile
> > +++ b/drivers/media/Makefile
> > @@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ obj-y += rc/
> >
> > obj-$(CONFIG_CEC_CORE) += cec/
> >
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_VIDEO_VIRTIO) += virtio/
> > +
> >
> > #
> > # Finally, merge the drivers that require the core
> > #
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/virtio/Kconfig b/drivers/media/virtio/Kconfig
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..3289bcf233f0
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/media/virtio/Kconfig
> > @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
> > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> > +# Video driver for virtio
> > +
> > +config VIDEO_VIRTIO
>
> "VIRTIO_VIDEO" would be better like VIRTIO_NET and VIRTIO_PCI.
>
Ok, I agree.
> > + tristate "Virtio video V4L2 driver"
> > + depends on VIRTIO && VIDEO_DEV && VIDEO_V4L2
> > + select VIDEOBUF2_DMA_SG
> > + select V4L2_MEM2MEM_DEV
>
> I suppose you also need "select VIDEOBUF2_V4L2", as struct
> vb2_v4l2_buffer is used.
>
It is selected automatically by VIDEO_V4L2. Also, there are no drivers that
set it explicitly.
> > + help
> > + This is the virtual video driver for virtio.
> > + Say Y or M.
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/virtio/Makefile b/drivers/media/virtio/Makefile
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..6bc48fde57b4
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/media/virtio/Makefile
> > @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
> > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> > +
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_VIDEO_VIRTIO) += virtio-video.o
> > +
> > +virtio-video-objs := \
> > + virtio_video_driver.o \
> > + virtio_video_vq.o \
> > + virtio_video_device.o \
> > + virtio_video_dec.o \
> > + virtio_video_enc.o \
> > + virtio_video_caps.o
> > +
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/virtio/virtio_video.h
> > b/drivers/media/virtio/virtio_video.h new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..23c77dc0cb93
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/media/virtio/virtio_video.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,372 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ */
> > +/* Common header for virtio video driver.
> > + *
> > + * Copyright 2019 OpenSynergy GmbH.
> > + *
> > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> > + * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> > + * (at your option) any later version.
> > + *
> > + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> > + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> > + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
> > + * GNU General Public License for more details.
> > + *
> > + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> > + * along with this program; if not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
> > + */
> > +
> > +#ifndef _VIRTIO_VIDEO_H
> > +#define _VIRTIO_VIDEO_H
> > +
> > +#include <linux/virtio.h>
> > +#include <linux/virtio_ids.h>
> > +#include <linux/virtio_config.h>
> > +#include <linux/virtio_video.h>
> > +#include <linux/list.h>
> > +#include <media/v4l2-device.h>
> > +#include <media/v4l2-mem2mem.h>
> > +#include <media/v4l2-ctrls.h>
> > +
> > +#define DRIVER_NAME "virtio-video"
> > +
> > +#ifndef VIRTIO_ID_VIDEO
> > +#define VIRTIO_ID_VIDEO 29
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +enum video_pin_type {
> > + VIDEO_PIN_TYPE_INPUT = 0,
> > + VIDEO_PIN_TYPE_OUTPUT,
> > +};
>
> Why don't you use enums and structs defined in
> /include/uapi/linux/virtio_video.h?
> For example, I suppose we don't need this video_pin_type, as we can
> use enum virtio_video_pin_type defined there.
> Same for other enums and structs in this file.
The idea was to have some extra layer of parameter verification. But I also
agree this might be excessive.
>
> [snip]
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/virtio/virtio_video_dec.c
> > b/drivers/media/virtio/virtio_video_dec.c new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..c2ad62229d21
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/media/virtio/virtio_video_dec.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,947 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> > +/* Decoder for virtio video device.
> > + *
> > + * Copyright 2019 OpenSynergy GmbH.
> > + *
> > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> > + * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> > + * (at your option) any later version.
> > + *
> > + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> > + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> > + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
> > + * GNU General Public License for more details.
> > + *
> > + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> > + * along with this program; if not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include <media/v4l2-event.h>
> > +#include <media/v4l2-ioctl.h>
> > +#include <media/videobuf2-dma-sg.h>
> > +
> > +#include "virtio_video.h"
> > +
> > +static int virtio_video_queue_setup(struct vb2_queue *vq,
> > + unsigned int *num_buffers,
> > + unsigned int *num_planes,
> > + unsigned int sizes[],
> > + struct device *alloc_devs[])
>
> We have functions named "virtio_video_queue_setup" both in
> virtio_video_dec.c and virtio_video_enc.c.
> How about calling them "virtio_video_{dec,enc}_queue_setup" or
> "virtvideo_{dec,enc}_queue_setup"?
> Though the naming conflicts of static functions shouldn't cause any
> problem when building a kernel, indexing tools, such as ctags, should
> be confused.
>
> Same for other functions.
There are some functions that simply can be moved to common code, we'll look
into this as well.
>
> [snip]
>
> > +int virtio_video_init_dec_queues(void *priv, struct vb2_queue *src_vq,
> > + struct vb2_queue *dst_vq)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > + struct virtio_video_stream *stream = priv;
> > + struct virtio_video_device *vvd = to_virtio_vd(stream->video_dev);
> > + struct device *dev = vvd->vv->v4l2_dev.dev;
> > +
> > + src_vq->type = V4L2_BUF_TYPE_VIDEO_OUTPUT_MPLANE;
> > + src_vq->io_modes = VB2_MMAP | VB2_DMABUF;
>
> I suppose this driver doesn't support DMABUF mode yet.
> IIUC, VB_DMABUF should be specified only when a driver supports DMA
> buffer importing.
We do support DMABUF. This is exactly how virtio-video works in Android with
gralloc handles. But ideally the driver needs to know device restrictions and
alloc accordingly. This is why we needed struct virtio_video_plane_format. I
guess we'll need to get it back.
>
> [snip]
>
> > +static int virtio_video_s_fmt(struct virtio_video_stream *stream,
> > + struct v4l2_format *f)
> > +{
> > + int i, ret;
> > + struct v4l2_pix_format_mplane *pix_mp = &f->fmt.pix_mp;
> > + struct virtio_video_device *vvd = to_virtio_vd(stream->video_dev);
> > + struct virtio_video *vv = vvd->vv;
> > + struct video_format_info info;
> > + struct video_format_info *p_info;
> > + enum video_pin_type pin = VIDEO_PIN_TYPE_INPUT;
> > +
> > + ret = virtio_video_try_fmt(stream, f);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + info.frame_width = pix_mp->width;
> > + info.frame_height = pix_mp->height;
> > + info.num_planes = pix_mp->num_planes;
> > + info.fourcc_format = pix_mp->pixelformat;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < info.num_planes; i++) {
> > + info.plane_format[i].stride =
> > +
> > pix_mp->plane_fmt[i].bytesperline;
> > + info.plane_format[i].plane_size =
> > + pix_mp->plane_fmt[i].sizeimage;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!V4L2_TYPE_IS_OUTPUT(f->type))
> > + pin = VIDEO_PIN_TYPE_OUTPUT;
> > +
> > + virtio_video_req_set_params(vv, vvd->id, &info, pin,
> > + VIDEO_PARAMS_SCOPE_STREAM, stream);
> > +
> > + virtio_video_req_get_params(vv, vvd->id, VIDEO_PIN_TYPE_INPUT,
> > + VIDEO_PARAMS_SCOPE_STREAM, stream);
> > +
> > + virtio_video_req_get_params(vv, vvd->id, VIDEO_PIN_TYPE_OUTPUT,
> > + VIDEO_PARAMS_SCOPE_STREAM, stream);
> > +
>
> nit: GET_PARAMS must be called for both queues after SET_PARAMS.
> So, how about defining a function to call these three functions?
Yes, might be useful.
>
> [snip]
>
> > +static int virtio_video_device_open(struct file *file)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > + uint32_t stream_id;
> > + char name[TASK_COMM_LEN];
> > + struct virtio_video_stream *stream;
> > + struct video_device *video_dev = video_devdata(file);
> > + struct virtio_video_device *vvd = video_drvdata(file);
> > + struct virtio_video *vv = vvd->vv;
> > +
> > + stream = kzalloc(sizeof(*stream), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!stream)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + get_task_comm(name, current);
> > + virtio_video_stream_id_get(vv, stream, &stream_id);
> > + ret = virtio_video_req_stream_create(vv, vvd->id, stream_id,
> > name);
>
> It'd be better not to send virtio requests in open callback to avoid
> unnecessary overhead. For example, we often open and close /dev/videoX
> just to check its capabilities. In that case, we don't need to create
> a stream.
>
> Instead, it'd make more sense to send the request when REQBUFS is
> called by passing a non-zero value as "count" and no stream is created
> yet.
> Please see comments for stream_destroy in release callback, too.
>
We probably just don't need to open too often. I know udev does this once on
boot. This is pretty much it.
> > + if (ret) {
> > + v4l2_err(&vv->v4l2_dev, "failed to create stream\n");
> > + goto err_stream_create;
> > + }
> > +
> > + stream->video_dev = video_dev;
> > + stream->stream_id = stream_id;
> > + stream->state = STREAM_STATE_IDLE;
> > + mutex_init(&stream->vq_mutex);
> > + INIT_WORK(&stream->work, virtio_video_worker);
> > + v4l2_fh_init(&stream->fh, video_dev);
> > + stream->fh.ctrl_handler = &stream->ctrl_handler;
> > +
> > + if (vvd->type == VIRTIO_VIDEO_FUNC_DECODER) {
>
> nit: How about using switch statements? Same for other if-else
> statements for vvd->type.
I agree. It will look more neat.
>
> [snip]
>
> > +
> > +static int virtio_video_device_release(struct file *file)
> > +{
> > + struct virtio_video_stream *stream = file2stream(file);
> > + struct video_device *video_dev = video_devdata(file);
> > + struct virtio_video_device *vvd = video_drvdata(file);
> > + struct virtio_video *vv = vvd->vv;
> > +
> > + v4l2_fh_del(&stream->fh);
> > + v4l2_fh_exit(&stream->fh);
> > + mutex_lock(video_dev->lock);
> > + v4l2_m2m_ctx_release(stream->fh.m2m_ctx);
> > + mutex_unlock(video_dev->lock);
> > +
> > + virtio_video_req_stream_destroy(vv, vvd->id, stream->stream_id);
>
> As with STREAM_CREATE requests, STREAM_DESTROY should be sent in
> REQBUFS callback as well.
> We can call it in REQBUFS when "v4l2_requestbuffers.count" is 0 and an
> active stream already exists (i.e. stream_id > 0).
> Still, it'd be good to keep STREAM_DESTROY here, as users can forget
> to free buffers via REQBUFS.
>
> [snip]
>
> > +void virtio_video_resource_id_get(struct virtio_video *vv, uint32_t *id)
> > +{
> > + int handle;
> > +
> > + idr_preload(GFP_KERNEL);
> > + spin_lock(&vv->resource_idr_lock);
> > + handle = idr_alloc(&vv->resource_idr, NULL, 1, 0, GFP_NOWAIT);
>
> We should check if idr_alloc returns no error here or caller-side.
>
> [snip]
>
> > +static int
> > +virtio_video_queue_ctrl_buffer_locked(struct virtio_video *vv,
> > + struct virtio_video_vbuffer *vbuf)
> > +{
> > + struct virtqueue *vq = vv->ctrlq.vq;
> > + struct scatterlist *sgs[3], vreq, vout, vresp;
> > + int outcnt = 0, incnt = 0;
> > + int ret;
>
> How about adding WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&vv->ctrlq.qlock)) to
> prevent misuse and show which lock must be used?
Makes sense.
>
> > +
> > + if (!vv->vq_ready)
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > + sg_init_one(&vreq, vbuf->buf, vbuf->size);
> > + sgs[outcnt + incnt] = &vreq;
> > + outcnt++;
> > +
> > + if (vbuf->data_size) {
> > + sg_init_one(&vout, vbuf->data_buf, vbuf->data_size);
> > + sgs[outcnt + incnt] = &vout;
> > + outcnt++;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (vbuf->resp_size) {
> > + sg_init_one(&vresp, vbuf->resp_buf, vbuf->resp_size);
> > + sgs[outcnt + incnt] = &vresp;
> > + incnt++;
> > + }
> > +
> > +retry:
> > + ret = virtqueue_add_sgs(vq, sgs, outcnt, incnt, vbuf, GFP_ATOMIC);
> > + if (ret == -ENOSPC) {
> > + spin_unlock(&vv->ctrlq.qlock);
> > + wait_event(vv->ctrlq.ack_queue, vq->num_free);
>
> wait_event_timeout would be better to avoid getting stuck.
True.
>
> > + spin_lock(&vv->ctrlq.qlock);
> > + goto retry;
>
> I'd use while-loop instead of goto.
>
The code was derived from virtio-gpu. Doesn't make too much difference in the
end.
> [snip]
>
> > +int virtio_video_req_stream_create(struct virtio_video *vv,
> > + uint32_t function_id, uint32_t
> > stream_id, + const char *name)
> > +{
> > + struct virtio_video_stream_create *req_p;
> > + struct virtio_video_vbuffer *vbuf;
> > +
> > + req_p = virtio_video_alloc_req(vv, &vbuf, sizeof(*req_p));
> > + if (IS_ERR(req_p))
> > + return PTR_ERR(req_p);
> > + memset(req_p, 0, sizeof(*req_p));
>
> I'm wondering if we don't need to call memset here, as
> virtio_video_get_vbuf calls memset for vbuf.
> If it's not true, it'd make sense to call memset in
> virtio_video_alloc_req instead because we always want to have
> zero-initialized structs.
>
I agree.
Best regards,
Dmitry.
> [snip]
>
> Best regards,
> Keiichi
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]