[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251001113937.GH324804@unreal>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 14:39:37 +0300
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
Vivek Kasireddy <vivek.kasireddy@...el.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/10] vfio/pci: Add dma-buf export config for MMIO
regions
On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:07:58AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:57:48 +0300
> Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 03:17:40PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Sun, 28 Sep 2025 17:50:17 +0300
> > > Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
> > > >
> > > > Add new kernel config which indicates support for dma-buf export
> > > > of MMIO regions, which implementation is provided in next patches.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/vfio/pci/Kconfig | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/Kconfig b/drivers/vfio/pci/Kconfig
> > > > index 2b0172f54665..55ae888bf26a 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/Kconfig
> > > > +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/Kconfig
> > > > @@ -55,6 +55,26 @@ config VFIO_PCI_ZDEV_KVM
> > > >
> > > > To enable s390x KVM vfio-pci extensions, say Y.
> > > >
> > > > +config VFIO_PCI_DMABUF
> > > > + bool "VFIO PCI extensions for DMA-BUF"
> > > > + depends on VFIO_PCI_CORE
> > > > + depends on PCI_P2PDMA && DMA_SHARED_BUFFER
> > > > + default y
> > > > + help
> > > > + Enable support for VFIO PCI extensions that allow exporting
> > > > + device MMIO regions as DMA-BUFs for peer devices to access via
> > > > + peer-to-peer (P2P) DMA.
> > > > +
> > > > + This feature enables a VFIO-managed PCI device to export a portion
> > > > + of its MMIO BAR as a DMA-BUF file descriptor, which can be passed
> > > > + to other userspace drivers or kernel subsystems capable of
> > > > + initiating DMA to that region.
> > > > +
> > > > + Say Y here if you want to enable VFIO DMABUF-based MMIO export
> > > > + support for peer-to-peer DMA use cases.
> > > > +
> > > > + If unsure, say N.
> > > > +
> > > > source "drivers/vfio/pci/mlx5/Kconfig"
> > > >
> > > > source "drivers/vfio/pci/hisilicon/Kconfig"
> > >
> > > This is only necessary if we think there's a need to build a kernel with
> > > P2PDMA and VFIO_PCI, but not VFIO_PCI_DMABUF. Does that need really
> > > exist?
> >
> > It is used to filter build of vfio_pci_dmabuf.c - drivers/vfio/pci/Makefile:
> > vfio-pci-core-$(CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_DMABUF) += vfio_pci_dmabuf.o
>
> Maybe my question of whether it needs to exist at all is too broad.
> Does it need to be a user visible Kconfig option? Where do we see the
> need to preclude this feature from vfio-pci if the dependencies are
> enabled?
The dependencies are for the platform and not for the devices. For
example, hisilicon device mentioned in other email doesn't support
p2p, but the platform most likely support.
I don't have strong feelings about this config and at least for our use
case will always be enabled. I can hide it from the users.
>
> > > I also find it unusual to create the Kconfig before adding the
> > > supporting code. Maybe this could be popped to the end or rolled into
> > > the last patch if we decided to keep it. Thanks,
> >
> > It is leftover from previous version, I can squash it, but first we need
> > to decide what to do with pcim_p2pdma_init() call, if it needs to be
> > guarded or not.
>
> As in the other thread, I think it would be cleaner in an IS_ENABLED
> branch. I'm tempted to suggest we filter out EOPNOTSUPP to allow it to
> be unconditional, but I understand your point with the list_head
> initialization. Thanks,
We can add dmabuf list to struct unconditionally, as memory overhead is
negligible. It will allow us to drop IS_ENABLED() too.
Thanks
>
> Alex
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists