On 07/10/2021 14:40, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 01:43:00PM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
@@ -1491,26 +1493,29 @@ static int efa_create_pbl(struct efa_dev *dev, return 0; }
-struct ib_mr *efa_reg_mr(struct ib_pd *ibpd, u64 start, u64 length,
u64 virt_addr, int access_flags,struct ib_udata *udata)+static void efa_dmabuf_invalidate_cb(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach) +{
- WARN_ON_ONCE(1,
"Invalidate callback should not be called when memory is pinned\n");+}
+static struct dma_buf_attach_ops efa_dmabuf_attach_ops = {
- .allow_peer2peer = true,
- .move_notify = efa_dmabuf_invalidate_cb,
+};
Shouldn't move_notify really just be left as NULL? I mean fixing whatever is preventing that?
That's what I had in the previous RFC and I think Christian didn't really like it.
+struct ib_mr *efa_reg_user_mr_dmabuf(struct ib_pd *ibpd, u64 start,
u64 length, u64 virt_addr,int fd, int access_flags,struct ib_udata *udata)+{
- struct efa_dev *dev = to_edev(ibpd->device);
- struct ib_umem_dmabuf *umem_dmabuf;
- struct efa_mr *mr;
- int err;
- mr = efa_alloc_mr(ibpd, access_flags, udata);
- if (IS_ERR(mr)) {
err = PTR_ERR(mr);goto err_out;- }
- umem_dmabuf = ib_umem_dmabuf_get(ibpd->device, start, length, fd,
access_flags, &efa_dmabuf_attach_ops);- if (IS_ERR(umem_dmabuf)) {
ibdev_dbg(&dev->ibdev, "Failed to get dmabuf[%d]\n", err);err = PTR_ERR(umem_dmabuf);goto err_free;- }
- dma_resv_lock(umem_dmabuf->attach->dmabuf->resv, NULL);
- err = dma_buf_pin(umem_dmabuf->attach);
- if (err) {
ibdev_dbg(&dev->ibdev, "Failed to pin dmabuf memory\n");goto err_release;- }
- err = ib_umem_dmabuf_map_pages(umem_dmabuf);
- if (err) {
ibdev_dbg(&dev->ibdev, "Failed to map dmabuf pages\n");goto err_unpin;- }
- dma_resv_unlock(umem_dmabuf->attach->dmabuf->resv);
If it is really this simple the core code should have this logic, 'ib_umem_dmabuf_get_pinned()' or something
Should get_pinned do just get + dma_buf_pin, or should it do ib_umem_dmabuf_map_pages as well?