[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <sakuovp57hzcth52lyms2t3tmn4vxop5565jhwewv4ucwjiubs@nvrdvq6cfmv4>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 10:24:56 +0900
From: Koichiro Den <den@...inux.co.jp>
To: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
Cc: ntb@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jdmason@...zu.us,
dave.jiang@...el.com, allenbh@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] NTB: ntb_transport: Handle remapped contiguous
region in vmalloc space
On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 10:14:00AM +0900, Koichiro Den wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 10:30:52AM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2025-10-26 18:43, Koichiro Den wrote:
> > > The RX buffer virtual address may reside in vmalloc space depending on
> > > the allocation path, where virt_to_page() is invalid.
> > >
> > > Use a helper that chooses vmalloc_to_page() or virt_to_page() as
> > > appropriate. This is safe since the buffer is guaranteed to be
> > > physically contiguous.
> >
> > I think this statement needs some explanation.
> >
> > vmalloc memory is generally not contiguous and using vmalloc_to_page()
> > like this seems very questionable.
>
> Yes generally it is, which is why I wrote the last sentence "... since the
s/generally it is/generally it is non-contiguous/
Sorry for the confusion
-Koichiro
> buffer is guaranteed to be physically contiguous."
>
> >
> > I did a very quick look and found that "offset" may come from
> > dma_alloc_attrs() which can also return coherent memory that would be in
> > vmalloc space and would be contiguous.
> >
> > However, in my cursory look, it appears that the kernel address returned
> > by dma_alloc_attrs() is eventually passed to dma_map_page() in order to
> > obtain the dma address a second time. This is really ugly, and almost
> > certainly not expected by the dma layer.
> >
> > This requires a bit of a change, but it seems to me that if
> > dma_alloc_attrs() is used, the dma address it returns should be used
> > directly and a second map should be avoided completely. Then we wouldn't
> > need the unusual use of vmalloc_to_page().
>
> I agree there's room for improvement around this "double" mapping.
> I'll think about a follow-up patch to clean this up.
>
> >
> > At the very least, I think these issues need to be mentioned in the
> > commit message.
>
> As for the commit message, I think adding one more line like:
> "See relevant commit 061a785a114f ("ntb: Force physically contiguous allocation of rx ring buffers")"
> should be sufficient. What do you think?
>
> Thanks for reviewing.
>
> -Koichiro
>
> >
> > Logan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists