linux-kernel - Re: [RFC RESEND 16/16] nvme-pci: use blk_rq_dma

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 11:05:18 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@...dia.com>,
	Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>, Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...dia.com>,
	Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
	Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
	Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
	iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
	Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>,
	Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
	"josef@...icpanda.com" <josef@...icpanda.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	"jack@...e.com" <jack@...e.com>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
	Zhu Yanjun <zyjzyj2000@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC RESEND 16/16] nvme-pci: use blk_rq_dma_map() for NVMe SGL

On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 03:33:21PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 08:51:56AM -0700, Keith Busch wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 01:18:47PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > @@ -236,7 +236,9 @@ struct nvme_iod {
> > >  	unsigned int dma_len;	/* length of single DMA segment mapping */
> > >  	dma_addr_t first_dma;
> > >  	dma_addr_t meta_dma;
> > > -	struct sg_table sgt;
> > > +	struct dma_iova_attrs iova;
> > > +	dma_addr_t dma_link_address[128];
> > > +	u16 nr_dma_link_address;
> > >  	union nvme_descriptor list[NVME_MAX_NR_ALLOCATIONS];
> > >  };
> > 
> > That's quite a lot of space to add to the iod. We preallocate one for
> > every request, and there could be millions of them. 
> 
> Yes.  And this whole proposal also seems clearly confused (not just
> because of the gazillion reposts) but because it mixes up the case
> where we can coalesce CPU regions into a single dma_addr_t range
> (iommu and maybe in the future swiotlb) and one where we need a

I had the broad expectation that the DMA API user would already be
providing a place to store the dma_addr_t as it has to feed that into
the HW. That memory should simply last up until we do dma unmap and
the cases that need dma_addr_t during unmap can go get it from there.

If that is how things are organized, is there another reason to lean
further into single-range case optimization?

We can't do much on the map side as single range doesn't imply
contiguous range, P2P and alignment create discontinuities in the
dma_addr_t that still have to be delt with.

Jason