[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aW/pQmOO8komCgOK@lstrano-desk.jf.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 12:44:50 -0800
From: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@...el.com>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
CC: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>, Christian König
<christian.koenig@....com>, Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>, "David
Airlie" <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, Gerd Hoffmann
<kraxel@...hat.com>, Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@...labora.com>,
Gurchetan Singh <gurchetansingh@...omium.org>, Chia-I Wu <olvaffe@...il.com>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, Maxime Ripard
<mripard@...nel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, "Lucas De
Marchi" <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>, Thomas Hellström
<thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com>, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>, "Joerg
Roedel" <joro@...tes.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Robin Murphy
<robin.murphy@....com>, Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>, "Alex
Williamson" <alex@...zbot.org>, Ankit Agrawal <ankita@...dia.com>, "Vivek
Kasireddy" <vivek.kasireddy@...el.com>, <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
<dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
<virtualization@...ts.linux.dev>, <intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
<linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>, <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] vfio: Wait for dma-buf invalidation to complete
On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 04:07:06PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
>
> dma-buf invalidation is performed asynchronously by hardware, so VFIO must
> wait until all affected objects have been fully invalidated.
>
> Fixes: 5d74781ebc86 ("vfio/pci: Add dma-buf export support for MMIO regions")
> Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
> ---
> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c
> index d4d0f7d08c53..33bc6a1909dd 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c
> @@ -321,6 +321,9 @@ void vfio_pci_dma_buf_move(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, bool revoked)
> dma_resv_lock(priv->dmabuf->resv, NULL);
> priv->revoked = revoked;
> dma_buf_move_notify(priv->dmabuf);
> + dma_resv_wait_timeout(priv->dmabuf->resv,
> + DMA_RESV_USAGE_KERNEL, false,
> + MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT);
Should we explicitly call out in the dma_buf_move_notify() /
invalidate_mappings kernel-doc that KERNEL slots are the mechanism
for communicating asynchronous dma_buf_move_notify /
invalidate_mappings events via fences?
Yes, this is probably implied, but it wouldn’t hurt to state this
explicitly as part of the cross-driver contract.
Here is what we have now:
* - Dynamic importers should set fences for any access that they can't
* disable immediately from their &dma_buf_attach_ops.invalidate_mappings
* callback.
Matt
> dma_resv_unlock(priv->dmabuf->resv);
> }
> fput(priv->dmabuf->file);
> @@ -342,6 +345,8 @@ void vfio_pci_dma_buf_cleanup(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev)
> priv->vdev = NULL;
> priv->revoked = true;
> dma_buf_move_notify(priv->dmabuf);
> + dma_resv_wait_timeout(priv->dmabuf->resv, DMA_RESV_USAGE_KERNEL,
> + false, MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT);
> dma_resv_unlock(priv->dmabuf->resv);
> vfio_device_put_registration(&vdev->vdev);
> fput(priv->dmabuf->file);
>
> --
> 2.52.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists