On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 3:44 PM David Ahern <dsahern@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 11/5/23 7:44 PM, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
> > index eeeda849115c..1c351c138a5b 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
> > @@ -843,6 +843,9 @@ struct netdev_dmabuf_binding {
> > };
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_DMA_SHARED_BUFFER
> > +struct page_pool_iov *
> > +netdev_alloc_devmem(struct netdev_dmabuf_binding *binding);
> > +void netdev_free_devmem(struct page_pool_iov *ppiov);
>
> netdev_{alloc,free}_dmabuf?
>
Can do.
> I say that because a dmabuf can be host memory, at least I am not aware
> of a restriction that a dmabuf is device memory.
>
In my limited experience dma-buf is generally device memory, and
that's really its use case. CONFIG_UDMABUF is a driver that mocks
dma-buf with a memfd which I think is used for testing. But I can do
the rename, it's more clear anyway, I think.
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 11:45 PM Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2023/11/6 10:44, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > +
> > +void netdev_free_devmem(struct page_pool_iov *ppiov)
> > +{
> > + struct netdev_dmabuf_binding *binding = page_pool_iov_binding(ppiov);
> > +
> > + refcount_set(&ppiov->refcount, 1);
> > +
> > + if (gen_pool_has_addr(binding->chunk_pool,
> > + page_pool_iov_dma_addr(ppiov), PAGE_SIZE))
>
> When gen_pool_has_addr() returns false, does it mean something has gone
> really wrong here?
>
Yes, good eye. gen_pool_has_addr() should never return false, but then
again, gen_pool_free() BUG_ON()s if it doesn't find the address,
which is an extremely severe reaction to what can be a minor bug in
the accounting. I prefer to leak rather than crash the machine. It's a
bit of defensive programming that is normally frowned upon, but I feel
like in this case it's maybe warranted due to the very severe reaction
(BUG_ON).
--
Thanks,
Mina
