On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 05:01:59PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 18/02/2019 14:37, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> [...]
> >Another issue is that dma_map_sg() & dma_map_page() may require some
> >constraints. I'm not sure about that and I want to clarify that with
> >CCed mm maintainers. I think DMA drivers may expect sg->offset < PAGE_SIZE
> >for both dma_map_sg() and dma_map_page(). Additionally dma_map_page()
> >maight expect that offset & length specify buffer within one page.
>
> Luckily, this came up a while back[1] and we seemed to reach a
> consensus that sg->offset >= PAGE_SIZE for dma_map_sg() was weird
> but valid. IIRC it was only the Intel IOMMU code which failed to
> handle that case appropriately (and which I fixed) - the AMD IOMMU
> code always looked like it should be OK, but I'm not sure I've ever
> seen definitive test results (and I don't have hardware to do so
> myself).
Funny that we have problems on AMD IOMMU and not with Intel IOMMU.
> For dma_map_page(), length >= PAGE_SIZE should be perfectly valid
> and handled correctly. The offset >= PAGE_SIZE case is a bit harder
> to justify, but at the same time has less scope for the DMA API
> backend to get it wrong, so either way is likely to be OK in
> practice (in particular the AMD IOMMU code looks like it won't have
> a problem, since its map_page() implementation converts page and
> offset to a plain physical address before doing anything else).
Thanks for clarify this. So my patch which do:
- page = virt_to_head_page(data);
+ page = virt_to_page(data);
offset = data - page_address(page);
sg_set_page(&urb->sg[i], page, sglen, offset);
should not be necessary as IOMMU driver do exactly the same internally.
Are there any alignment requirement for offset for dma_map_{page,sg} ?
It will work with let say sg->offset=113 or we have make sure it is
aligned to some boundary. If so, what boundary ?
Stanislaw
