Re: [PATCH RFC 01/26] dma-buf: Introduce DMA-buf mapping types

["Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, 2026-10-21 at 09:37 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 08:24:40AM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > > struct dma_buf_mapping_exp_ops
> > >    Base type for the per-mapping type exporter provided
> > > functions.
> > > This
> > >    would be the map/unmap callbacks. Each mapping type can
> > > provide
> > > its own
> > >    functions for map/unmap type operations with optimal type
> > > signatures.
> > 
> > Does it make sense to try to land this patch first, plus a
> > conversion
> > of pcie_p2p so we could agree on what the contract should look
> > like?
> 
> I think it would be good to focus on this patch as the main 'crux' of
> the series. The API contract is the main agreement. I'm relucant to
> merge code that has no users, so it woudl be ebtter to go up to at
> least through SGT.

I agree about unused code, but wouldn't a pcie_p2p conversion to a
mapping type be a valid use-case?

>  
> > s/mapping/interconnect/? My gut feeling is that "interconnect" best
> > describes what's typically going on, but "mapping" perhaps better
> > describes all cases.
> 
> My intention was to cover more than just the phyiscal transport. We
> do
> really want to get away from scatterlist, so having PCIe map with
> scatterlist and PCIe map with <something else> still ends up with two
> mapping types in the system.
> 
> This is why I choose the name over interconnect.
> 
> > Location of common protocols which typically carry cross-subsystem
> > dependencies?
> > drivers/dma-buf/mapping_types? drivers/dma-buf/interconnects?
> 
> I'd encourage people to design more like PCI where the actual
> *interconnect* has its own home and there is just some minor call
> outs
> from dmabuf to help the matching logic.
> 
> > As discussed previously: 
> > Agree on theoretically possible matches at attach time, Match at
> > mapping time and guarantee the match is valid until
> > invalidate_mappings().
> 
> I was thinking about this some more, and I'm less sure now.
> 
> If I think about mlx5, in a multi-path PCIe configuration, it can
> move
> the translation around within a single PCIe path, but it cannot move
> it to another path without creating disruption for the
> application. This is a HW limitation in how the internal routing
> works..
> 
> I strongly suspect this will be the norm for any hardware that
> doesn't
> rely on decorated page tables to select the IO path..
> 
> So, while I agree we should support hardware that can fully change
> the
> path on each and every map, we also need to suport hardware that must
> pin the path during attach.
> 
> Probably this points to needing a 'pin' operation for the mapping
> selection after attach.
> 
> > > +/*
> > > + * Match items are generated by the importer using the
> > > DMA_BUF_IMAPPING_*() and
> > > + * the exporter using the DMA_BUF_EMAPPING_*() functions. Each
> > > mapping type
> > > + * defines its own signature with its own data to make the match
> > > and
> > > attachment.
> > > + */
> > > +struct dma_buf_mapping_match {
> > > +	const struct dma_buf_mapping_type *type;
> > > +	const struct dma_buf_mapping_exp_ops *exp_ops;
> > > +	union {
> > > +		/* Each mapping_type has unique match parameters
> > > here */
> > > +	};
> > 
> > Do we really need to add all global mapping types here? Then we'd
> > need
> > something for driver-private mapping types as well.
> 
> IIRC it is fixed size up front like this because of how the
> structure's memory is managed in this design..
> 
> If you want a driver private thing then I'd add a 'u64
> driver_private[2]' to the union and the driver can cast over it.
> 
> But this is the kernel, if you want to add an xe_mapping_type, then
> just add it. I don't know we need to do driver private things.

I guess it's my wish to separate components. Couldn't this lead to
excessive includes and unnecessary dma-buf recompilations when mostly
unrelated headers are touched? Except possibly for memory size, core
dma-buf shouldn't need to know about this, it's a mapping private
thing?

/Thomas


> 
> Jason