Re: [PATCH 00/17] dmaengine: dw-edma: Support dynamic LL appends

[Manivannan Sadhasivam]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 04:18:01PM +0200, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 04:38:49PM +0900, Koichiro Den wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 12:40:54AM +0900, Koichiro Den wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Frank, Niklas, all,
> > 
> > I am looking for a good way to stress PCIe controller DMA engines, such as
> > eDMA/HDMA, and measure their upper-bound throughput.
> > 
> > nvmet_pci_epf is useful since it is a real in-tree consumer, but it is not a
> > very direct benchmark for the DMA engine itself. So I wonder if
> > pci_endpoint_test would be a reasonable place to add an opt-in DMA performance
> > mode.
> > 

I think including DMA performance tests to pci-epf-test would overload it.
pci-epf-test already provides the bare minimum read/write benchmark, which I
feel is sufficient enough.

> > One possible option I have in mind is:
> > 
> >   - a new fixture, pci_ep_dma_perf
> >   - opt-in execution, for example with PCITEST_PERF=1 environment variable
> >   - a few variants such as single and sg, possibly with a few knobs:
> >      - PCITEST_PERF_NUM_WORKERS, to use multiple EP-side workers
> >      - PCITEST_PERF_NUM_CHANS, to use multiple DMA channels
> >      - perhaps other knobs for SG entry size, number of entries, etc.
> >   - the new tests: READ_PERF_TEST and WRITE_PERF_TEST
> > 
> > For the other possible places I could think of, this still seems to fit best in
> > pci_endpoint_test. For example, extending dmatest does not seem to fit well
> > because this needs both EP and RC side setup. A separate kselftest also feels
> > like it would duplicate a lot of pci_endpoint_test code. That said, I might be
> > missing something.
> > 
> > What do you think? Any thoughts or suggestions would be much appreciated.
> 
> There are two existing (out-of-tree) tests for eDMA that I know of:
> 
> 1)
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-pci/patch/cc195ac53839b318764c8f6502002cd6d933a923.1547230339.git.gustavo.pimentel@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> But as you can see, the comment was to use dmatest instead.
> AFAICT, dmatest currently only supports DMA_MEMCPY, which, by hardware design,
> cannot be supported by DWC eDMA HW (since it only allows remote to local, or
> local to remote, and remote has to be a PCI address, while local is local
> physical address).
> 
> Perhaps it is possible to add DMA_SLAVE support to dmatest.
> 

Since Vinod is not in favor of it, you can also think about adding eDMA/HDMA
specific kselftests. It makes lot of sense to write a  standalone test since
we can configure this IP from both host and endpoint side.

- Mani

-- 
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்