> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <j...@ziepe.ca>
> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2020 4:25 PM
> To: Xiong, Jianxin <jianxin.xi...@intel.com>
> Cc: linux-r...@vger.kernel.org; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; Doug Ledford
> <dledf...@redhat.com>; Leon Romanovsky
> <l...@kernel.org>; Sumit Semwal <sumit.sem...@linaro.org>; Christian Koenig
> <christian.koe...@amd.com>; Vetter, Daniel
> <daniel.vet...@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/5] RDMA/mlx5: Support dma-buf based userspace memory
> region
>
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 02:48:08PM -0800, Jianxin Xiong wrote:
> > @@ -966,7 +969,10 @@ static struct mlx5_ib_mr *alloc_mr_from_cache(struct
> > ib_pd *pd,
> > struct mlx5_ib_mr *mr;
> > unsigned int page_size;
> >
> > - page_size = mlx5_umem_find_best_pgsz(umem, mkc, log_page_size, 0, iova);
> > + if (umem->is_dmabuf)
> > + page_size = ib_umem_find_best_pgsz(umem, PAGE_SIZE, iova);
>
> You said the sgl is not set here, why doesn't this crash? It is certainly
> wrong to call this function without a SGL.
The sgl is NULL, and nmap is 0. The 'for_each_sg' loop is just skipped and
won't crash.
>
> > +/**
> > + * mlx5_ib_fence_dmabuf_mr - Stop all access to the dmabuf MR
> > + * @mr: to fence
> > + *
> > + * On return no parallel threads will be touching this MR and no DMA
> > +will be
> > + * active.
> > + */
> > +void mlx5_ib_fence_dmabuf_mr(struct mlx5_ib_mr *mr) {
> > + struct ib_umem_dmabuf *umem_dmabuf = to_ib_umem_dmabuf(mr->umem);
> > +
> > + /* Prevent new page faults and prefetch requests from succeeding */
> > + xa_erase(&mr->dev->odp_mkeys, mlx5_base_mkey(mr->mmkey.key));
> > +
> > + /* Wait for all running page-fault handlers to finish. */
> > + synchronize_srcu(&mr->dev->odp_srcu);
> > +
> > + wait_event(mr->q_deferred_work,
> > +!atomic_read(&mr->num_deferred_work));
> > +
> > + dma_resv_lock(umem_dmabuf->attach->dmabuf->resv, NULL);
> > + mlx5_mr_cache_invalidate(mr);
> > + umem_dmabuf->private = NULL;
> > + dma_resv_unlock(umem_dmabuf->attach->dmabuf->resv);
> > +
> > + if (!mr->cache_ent) {
> > + mlx5_core_destroy_mkey(mr->dev->mdev, &mr->mmkey);
> > + WARN_ON(mr->descs);
> > + }
> > +}
>
> I would expect this to call ib_umem_dmabuf_unmap_pages() ?
>
> Who calls it on the dereg path?
>
> This looks quite strange to me, it calls ib_umem_dmabuf_unmap_pages() only
> from the invalidate callback?
>
It is also called from ib_umem_dmabuf_release().
> I feel uneasy how this seems to assume everything works sanely, we can have
> parallel page faults so pagefault_dmabuf_mr() can be called
> multiple times after an invalidation, and it doesn't protect itself against
> calling ib_umem_dmabuf_map_pages() twice.
>
> Perhaps the umem code should keep track of the current map state and exit if
> there is already a sgl. NULL or not NULL sgl would do and
> seems quite reasonable.
>
Ib_umem_dmabuf_map() already checks the sgl and will do nothing if it is
already set.
> > @@ -810,22 +871,31 @@ static int pagefault_mr(struct mlx5_ib_mr *mr, u64
> > io_virt, size_t bcnt,
> > u32 *bytes_mapped, u32 flags)
> > {
> > struct ib_umem_odp *odp = to_ib_umem_odp(mr->umem);
> > + struct ib_umem_dmabuf *umem_dmabuf = to_ib_umem_dmabuf(mr->umem);
> >
> > lockdep_assert_held(&mr->dev->odp_srcu);
> > if (unlikely(io_virt < mr->mmkey.iova))
> > return -EFAULT;
> >
> > - if (!odp->is_implicit_odp) {
> > + if (is_dmabuf_mr(mr) || !odp->is_implicit_odp) {
> > u64 user_va;
> > + u64 end;
> >
> > if (check_add_overflow(io_virt - mr->mmkey.iova,
> > - (u64)odp->umem.address, &user_va))
> > + (u64)mr->umem->address, &user_va))
> > return -EFAULT;
> > - if (unlikely(user_va >= ib_umem_end(odp) ||
> > - ib_umem_end(odp) - user_va < bcnt))
> > + if (is_dmabuf_mr(mr))
> > + end = mr->umem->address + mr->umem->length;
> > + else
> > + end = ib_umem_end(odp);
> > + if (unlikely(user_va >= end || end - user_va < bcnt))
> > return -EFAULT;
> > - return pagefault_real_mr(mr, odp, user_va, bcnt, bytes_mapped,
> > - flags);
> > + if (is_dmabuf_mr(mr))
> > + return pagefault_dmabuf_mr(mr, umem_dmabuf, user_va,
> > + bcnt, bytes_mapped, flags);
>
> But this doesn't care about user_va or bcnt it just triggers the whole thing
> to be remapped, so why calculate it?
The range check is still needed, in order to catch application errors of using
incorrect address or count in verbs command. Passing the values further in is
to allow pagefault_dmabuf_mr to
generate return value and set bytes_mapped in a way consistent with the page
fault handler
chain.
>
> Jason
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
