On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 11:13:02AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> HMM callers use PFN list to populate range while calling
> to hmm_range_fault(), the conversion from PFN to DMA address
> is done by the callers with help of another DMA list. However,
> it is wasteful on any modern platform and by doing the right
> logic, that DMA list can be avoided.
>
> Provide generic logic to manage these lists and gave an interface
> to map/unmap PFNs to DMA addresses, without requiring from the callers
> to be an experts in DMA core API.
>
> Tested-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
I don't think Jens tested the RDMA and hmm parts :)
> + /*
> + * The HMM API violates our normal DMA buffer ownership rules and can't
> + * transfer buffer ownership. The dma_addressing_limited() check is a
> + * best approximation to ensure no swiotlb buffering happens.
> + */
This is a bit unclear, HMM inherently can't do cache flushing or
swiotlb bounce buffering because its entire purpose is to DMA directly
and coherently to a mm_struct's page tables. There are no sensible
points we could put the required flushing that wouldn't break the
entire model.
FWIW I view that fact that we now fail back to userspace in these
cases instead of quietly malfunction to be a big improvement.
> +bool hmm_dma_unmap_pfn(struct device *dev, struct hmm_dma_map *map, size_t idx)
> +{
> + struct dma_iova_state *state = &map->state;
> + dma_addr_t *dma_addrs = map->dma_list;
> + unsigned long *pfns = map->pfn_list;
> + unsigned long attrs = 0;
> +
> +#define HMM_PFN_VALID_DMA (HMM_PFN_VALID | HMM_PFN_DMA_MAPPED)
> + if ((pfns[idx] & HMM_PFN_VALID_DMA) != HMM_PFN_VALID_DMA)
> + return false;
> +#undef HMM_PFN_VALID_DMA
If a v10 comes I'd put this in a const function level variable:
const unsigned int HMM_PFN_VALID_DMA = HMM_PFN_VALID | HMM_PFN_DMA_MAPPED;
Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Jason
