On 2022-06-29 13:15, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2022-06-29 16:57, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On 2022-06-29 06:07, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> On 2022-06-15 17:12, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>> When a PCI P2PDMA page is seen, set the IOVA length of the segment
>>>> to zero so that it is not mapped into the IOVA. Then, in finalise_sg(),
>>>> apply the appropriate bus address to the segment. The IOVA is not
>>>> created if the scatterlist only consists of P2PDMA pages.
>>>> A P2PDMA page may have three possible outcomes when being mapped:
>>>>     1) If the data path between the two devices doesn't go through
>>>>        the root port, then it should be mapped with a PCI bus address
>>>>     2) If the data path goes through the host bridge, it should be
>>>> mapped
>>>>        normally with an IOMMU IOVA.
>>>>     3) It is not possible for the two devices to communicate and thus
>>>>        the mapping operation should fail (and it will return
>>>> Similar to dma-direct, the sg_dma_mark_pci_p2pdma() flag is used to
>>>> indicate bus address segments. On unmap, P2PDMA segments are skipped
>>>> over when determining the start and end IOVA addresses.
>>>> With this change, the flags variable in the dma_map_ops is set to
>>>> DMA_F_PCI_P2PDMA_SUPPORTED to indicate support for P2PDMA pages.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Logan Gunthorpe <log...@deltatee.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <j...@nvidia.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c | 68
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>>>    1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c
>>>> index f90251572a5d..b01ca0c6a7ab 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c
>>>> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
>>>>    #include <linux/iova.h>
>>>>    #include <linux/irq.h>
>>>>    #include <linux/list_sort.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/memremap.h>
>>>>    #include <linux/mm.h>
>>>>    #include <linux/mutex.h>
>>>>    #include <linux/pci.h>
>>>> @@ -1062,6 +1063,16 @@ static int __finalise_sg(struct device *dev,
>>>> struct scatterlist *sg, int nents,
>>>>            sg_dma_address(s) = DMA_MAPPING_ERROR;
>>>>            sg_dma_len(s) = 0;
>>>>    +        if (is_pci_p2pdma_page(sg_page(s)) && !s_iova_len) {
>>> Logically, should we not be able to use sg_is_dma_bus_address() here? I
>>> think it should be feasible, and simpler, to prepare the p2p segments
>>> up-front, such that at this point all we need to do is restore the
>>> original length (if even that, see below).
>> Per my previous email, no, because sg_is_dma_bus_address() is not set
>> yet and not meant to tell you something about the page. That flag will
>> be set below by pci_p2pdma_map_bus_segment() and then checkd in
>> iommu_dma_unmap_sg() to determine if the dma_address in the segment
>> needs to be unmapped.
> I know it's not set yet as-is; I'm suggesting things should be
> restructured so that it *would be*. In the logical design of this code,
> the DMA addresses are effectively determined in iommu_dma_map_sg(), and
> __finalise_sg() merely converts them from a relative to an absolute form
> (along with undoing the other trickery). Thus the call to
> pci_p2pdma_map_bus_segment() absolutely belongs in the main
> iommu_map_sg() loop.

I don't see how that can work: __finalise_sg() does more than convert
them from relative to absolute, it also figures out which SG entry will
contain which dma_address segment. Which segment a P2PDMA address needs
to be programmed into depends on the how 'cur' is calculated which in
turn depends on things like seg_mask and max_len. This calculation is
not done in iommu_dma_map_sg() so I don't see how there's any hope of
assigning the bus address for the P2P segments in that function.

If there's a way to restructure things so that's possible that I'm not
seeing, I'm open to it but it's certainly not immediately obvious.

>>>> +
>>>> +            switch (map_type) {
>>>> +            case PCI_P2PDMA_MAP_BUS_ADDR:
>>>> +                /*
>>>> +                 * A zero length will be ignored by
>>>> +                 * iommu_map_sg() and then can be detected
>>> If that is required behaviour then it needs an explicit check in
>>> iommu_map_sg() to guarantee (and document) it. It's only by chance that
>>> __iommu_map() happens to return success for size == 0 *if* all the other
>>> arguments still line up, which is a far cry from a safe no-op.
>> What should such a check look like? I could certainly add some comments
>> to iommu_map_sg(), but I don't see what the code would need to check
>> for...
> I'd say a check for zero-length segments would look like "if (sg->length
> == 0)", most likely with a "continue;" on the following line.

Oh, that's pretty simple to add. Will change.

>>> However, rather than play yet more silly tricks, I think it would make
>>> even more sense to make iommu_map_sg() properly aware and able to skip
>>> direct p2p segments on its own. Once it becomes normal to pass mixed
>>> scatterlists around, it's only a matter of time until one ends up being
>>> handed to a driver which manages its own IOMMU domain, and then what?
>> I suppose we can add another call to is_pci_p2pdma_page() inside
>> iommu_map_sg() if you think that is cleaner. Seems like more work on the
>> fast path to me, but I'm not opposed to it.
> I was thinking more of sg_is_dma_bus_address() but admittedly under my
> initial misapprehension of that. I suppose there's still a tenuous
> argument that even though we're not actually consuming sg_dma_address()
> at that point, if a segment *has* been earmarked for direct p2p, then
> skipping it rather than mapping it at the root complex TA that's
> probably never going to see those transactions might seem the more
> logical choice.
> However it's all a bit hypothetical, and not significantly cleaner than
> a zero-size special case, so I'm not particularly tied to the idea either.

Yeah, looking at it closer, I can't see how to get rid of the zero size
special case without doing the whole pci_p2pdma_map_type() calculation
twice which we really want to avoid.

iommu mailing list

Reply via email to