On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 06:37:11PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> The replacement for kmap_atomic() is already here -- it's
> kmap_(atomic|local)_pfn(). If a simple wrapper like kmap_local_phys()
> would make this more palatable, that would be fine by me. Might save
> a bit of messing around with calculating offsets in each caller.
I think that makes the general plan clearer. We should be removing the
struct pages entirely from the insides of DMA API layer and use the
phys_addr_t, kmap_XX_phys(), phys_to_virt(), and so on.
The request from Christoph and Marek to clean up the dma_ops makes
sense in that context, we'd have to go into the ops and replace the
struct page kmaps/etc with the phys based ones.
This hides the struct page requirement to get to a KVA inside the core
mm code only and that sort of modularity is exactly the sort of thing
that could help entirely remove a struct page requirement for some
kinds of DMA someday.
Matthew, do you think it makes sense to introduce types to make this
clearer? We have two kinds of values that a phys_addr_t can store -
something compatible with kmap_XX_phys(), and something that isn't.
This was recently a long discussion in ARM KVM as well which had a
similar confusion that a phys_addr_t was actually two very different
things inside its logic.
So what about some dedicated types:
kphys_addr_t - A physical address that can be passed to
kmap_XX_phys(), phys_to_virt(), etc.
raw_phys_addr_t - A physical address that may not be cachable, may
not be DRAM, and does not work with kmap_XX_phys()/etc.
We clearly have these two different ideas floating around in code,
page tables, etc.
I read some of Robin's concern that the struct page provided a certain
amount of type safety in the DMA API, this could provide similar.
Thanks,
Jason
