On Sat, Sep 20, 2025 at 06:47:27PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > On Sat, Sep 20, 2025 at 06:53:52PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 10:08:21AM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 12:03:27PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 12:25:38AM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > This series does the core code and modern flows. A followup series > > > > > > will give the same treatment to the legacy dma_ops implementation. > > > > > > > > > > Applied patches 1-13 into dma-mapping-for-next branch. Let's check if it > > > > > works fine in linux-next. > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > Just fyi, when dma debug is enabled, we're seeing this new warning > > > below. I have not had a chance to look into it yet, so I'm just > > > reporting the observation. > > > > Did you apply all patches or only Marek's branch? > > I don't get this warning when I run my NVMe tests on current dmabuf-vfio branch. > > This was the snapshot of linux-next from the 20250918 tag. It doesn't > have the full patchset applied. > > One other thing to note, this was runing on arm64 platform using smmu > configured with 64k pages. If your iommu granule is 4k instead, we > wouldn't use the blk_dma_map_direct path. I spent some time looking to see if I could guess what this is and came up empty. It seems most likely we are leaking a dma mapping tracking somehow? The DMA API side is pretty simple here though.. Not sure the 64k/4k itself is a cause, but triggering the non-iova flow is probably the issue. Can you check the output of this debugfs: /* * Dump mappings entries on user space via debugfs */ static int dump_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *v) ? If the system is idle and it has lots of entries that is probably confirmation of the theory. Jason
