On 2024-10-15 07:29, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 10/14/24 23:38, Mina Almasry wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 12, 2024 at 2:42 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 10:33:43AM -0700, Mina Almasry wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 6:34 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 10:44:38 -0700 Mina Almasry wrote:
>>>>>>>> I haven't thought the failure of PP_FLAG_DMA_SYNC_DEV
>>>>>>>> for dmabuf may be wrong.
>>>>>>>> I think device memory TCP is not related to this flag.
>>>>>>>> So device memory TCP core API should not return failure when
>>>>>>>> PP_FLAG_DMA_SYNC_DEV flag is set.
>>>>>>>> How about removing this condition check code in device memory TCP core?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we need to invert the check..
>>>>>>> Mina, WDYT?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On a closer look, my feeling is similar to Taehee,
>>>>>> PP_FLAG_DMA_SYNC_DEV should be orthogonal to memory providers. The
>>>>>> memory providers allocate the memory and provide the dma-addr, but
>>>>>> need not dma-sync the dma-addr, right? The driver can sync the
>>>>>> dma-addr if it wants and the driver can delegate the syncing to the pp
>>>>>> via PP_FLAG_DMA_SYNC_DEV if it wants. AFAICT I think the check should
>>>>>> be removed, not inverted, but I could be missing something.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know much about dmabuf but it hinges on the question whether
>>>>> doing DMA sync for device on a dmabuf address is :
>>>>> - a good thing
>>>>> - a noop
>>>>> - a bad thing
>>>>>
>>>>> If it's a good thing or a noop - agreed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Similar question for the sync for CPU.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that intuitively it should be all fine. But the fact that dmabuf
>>>>> has a bespoke API for accessing the memory by the CPU makes me worried
>>>>> that there may be assumptions about these addresses not getting
>>>>> randomly fed into the normal DMA API..
>>>>
>>>> Sorry I'm also a bit unsure what is the right thing to do here. The
>>>> code that we've been running in GVE does a dma-sync for cpu
>>>> unconditionally on RX for dma-buf and non-dmabuf dma-addrs and we
>>>> haven't been seeing issues. It never does dma-sync for device.
>>>>
>>>> My first question is why is dma-sync for device needed on RX path at
>>>> all for some drivers in the first place? For incoming (non-dmabuf)
>>>> data, the data is written by the device and read by the cpu, so sync
>>>> for cpu is really what's needed. Is the sync for device for XDP? Or is
>>>> it that buffers should be dma-syncd for device before they are
>>>> re-posted to the NIC?
>>>>
>>>> Christian/Jason, sorry quick question: are
>>>> dma_sync_single_for_{device|cpu} needed or wanted when the dma-addrs
>>>> come from a dma-buf? Or these dma-addrs to be treated like any other
>>>> with the normal dma_sync_for_{device|cpu} rules?
>>>
>>> Um, I think because dma-buf hacks things up and generates illegal
>>> scatterlist entries with weird dma_map_resource() addresses for the
>>> typical P2P case the dma sync API should not be used on those things.
>>>
>>> However, there is no way to know if the dma-buf has does this, and
>>> there are valid case where the scatterlist is not ill formed and the
>>> sync is necessary.
>>>
>>> We are getting soo close to being able to start fixing these API
>>> issues in dmabuf, I hope next cylce we can begin.. Fingers crossed.
>>>
>>> From a CPU architecture perspective you do not need to cache flush PCI
>>> MMIO BAR memory, and perhaps doing so be might be problematic on some
>>> arches (???). But you do need to flush normal cachable CPU memory if
>>> that is in the DMA buf.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks Jason. In that case I agree with Jakub we should take in his change here:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20241009170102.1980ed1d@xxxxxxxxxx/
>>
>> With this change the driver would delegate dma_sync_for_device to the
>> page_pool, and the page_pool will skip it altogether for the dma-buf
>> memory provider.
>
> Requiring ->dma_map should be common to all providers as page pool
> shouldn't be dipping to net_iovs figuring out how to map them. However,
> looking at this discussion seems that the ->dma_sync concern is devmem
> specific and should be discarded by pp providers using dmabufs, i.e. in
> devmem.c:mp_dmabuf_devmem_init().
Yes, that's my preference as well, see my earlier reply.
>
