From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79FB1CC6B08 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2026 09:38:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=oTxQfKp3tqhTG4A8e3eA1UWYq0qoe3PSOMQA99g87ls=; b=udTSkHyDGSJq0FAfTr5t/LIN9A PB4DaPlSTwdYa1tOBlxxuDn8bZWvT6KS6l7Gufko9MaEm7/lLSEOK+Vrz+ST2MqwYhupdBrePJgr8 zEWVlJsYYvGGvKsu3BXpreE68btQpCDDucHX8ZXiiqBPMl6e4u9qd11FHoD2FPh3G3HLL9AS+CgD7 IQ2s4CFUixIbMEMi3D+UUaq8gqJoaUwJMQN4Set6mrby1CdSdp4Sw9olJItkOqf02LYjdHbHq6vzV ZbJWUvKAefzbHEc5p0Q43J6QMTNHDdKx5cDEeTCthPGYwucsxb4wBb0cP1qwePAevEukGcszygwsG N6DZ2fLw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1xGYxW-0000000CRc7-1b4I; Tue, 13 Oct 2026 09:38:10 +0000 Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::332]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1xGYxU-0000000CRbL-15R6 for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2026 09:38:09 +0000 Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4a1635f7c89so27495365e9.2 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2026 02:38:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20251104; t=1791884285; x=1792489085; darn=lists.infradead.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=oTxQfKp3tqhTG4A8e3eA1UWYq0qoe3PSOMQA99g87ls=; b=h/xk5tefCakKAi8aovATYT+eLu1wUTWySB1IdB3dtYAMiNIvy13eQ79xyJnrtQ42Zm nGN5aKugPWkR4Tm02vg1aOu1B00FfG3A7s5ql+p76HUQ1mPpmqjYoFgk7mk8Gy+PI89Z Xrn6cLeqeVfPYXkih4tOmPEbgP7iDYMnW+XvIJ58/2coYvtyjf3P1W+IlIkslOKGJO3P fiMUxY2+kbX4T6A95P2bOa4hYWkLrkjSPJalzVUWthw5V1uJWQjnpHPS5nmdxfkuBY8r 5KbPX1Sa6vnF1XLZDbh2mUtvjFq9HOxk740EReNVnrIeP5iwKK7AMLNcELZingM26KhK CVaw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1791884285; x=1792489085; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=oTxQfKp3tqhTG4A8e3eA1UWYq0qoe3PSOMQA99g87ls=; b=cfioOaRftK39TIV78v5UWeGR+vcoOGhaWd+jjW+tJ121d5/nGjj+8hc3xUCHXGqkhz ItaO5yLG6+XLuwADhuSuHSrrrMx5tEg8UKs3bHLFGpHEmXLc+Z9NkaRVZhqPNPCDkcAw KtbWDLS9hpmDToQ8Y94Ce9dXHCFexT39dIst6WW8DmoWK3hIioUXbJs9iPNYPQpEm/Gt o+m60didvv+AsqrD6HBzUGCyjTzN1EAmOybM55z45bargGpSYEBf3hiJiWN3ZD+QSQEu uY5SUzltsML+z45+4JAzX3/texF8YNkDrY6gdG2ZVXtPHpiH2RGjj20Bi0T2dOHSWYHf qMmQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvByB/NMtRgY0XV6R07I788OI/rkyg2m6bVy2BUsAz9s5JP4qUYncv7V8uKR/VoIl5RvvXHn0eroE0PEcLHfTQ06K@lists.infradead.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFq9FYK908Zd82wul986LYGdzzxYM6qTF+C2aEOzuv9SlRLm2Ievubov QoSU6F951mf8VIyf0beEZbbgdd9i3WzdRwsExPFBdZVZhmRQF+3Di33uNG60+oU6vQ== X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou1K245l9jklP31yaXOXKy4+L5aKv2MxlJY9uJoecXZ6PLa1kUtdi5sLMYWBQTK 3eqC/cpUZEf6uw6IGjiPpgQgRVefm8MXNgHfGsvornFEm0H1J4pGBeCcWLtx4p2uez4XCmvFA0T dCMZjlCrCkCKr3kZmsc4zYoA14YhBRN2Oho+4DpcJK4XfPKAR2TVzPKRPEJAOzOZzyc1QT7Xnh4 263QedVrMNlJEV8kzJRNAV/QXFJRayIjlMA8dZh4q+IUzJ3lky/YxPePrT8APr26lBBdU1CrwG9 HG8uQkUIsSqVHVHLmteW3C355At1oeTAu7oiM2CH5WLBrrOdL8LsUTEMpq8nLmzg2z733RK2XEh pJvjmwjOqfOdnU3RiLmJeOxUK7+Gyx8HHQ3b5P+M/PyKRsskyM+j6bdIq8BVs3FLN9gtyEWMAqX uRwTSCHT+Rqmk/ddRypdiMSoDR571ZKkupMPc48pifeNYPC/oGt7ArXYu9BO+wJC+X6V54Fgbs5 1Y5kHuenaYEXdkSW7O73w0BQ0YKN1Nelcttwc2gQQQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:c049:b0:4a1:9a97:c88 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4a19a971118mr97040485e9.5.1791884284684; Tue, 13 Oct 2026 02:38:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com (197.183.140.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.140.183.197]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-48de0aaabb8sm4646155f8f.15.2026.10.13.02.38.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 13 Oct 2026 02:38:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2026 10:37:59 +0100 From: Vincent Donnefort To: Sumit Garg Cc: Will Deacon , brendan.jackman@linux.dev, catalin.marinas@arm.com, rppt@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, sudeep.holla@kernel.org, jenswi@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, ardb@kernel.org, thierry.reding@kernel.org, david@kernel.org, danielmentz@google.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] arm64: Unmap FF-A lent memory from direct map Message-ID: References: <20260921110050.3977591-1-vdonnefort@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.9.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20261013_023808_387801_3BA9B537 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 65.92 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 06:46:12PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > On Mon, 05 Oct 2026 at 12:02:55 +0100, Vincent Donnefort wrote: > > Sorry, not sure why Sumit's email was dropped... > > The problem was with my mutt config, it should be fixed now. > > > > > On Mon, Oct 05, 2026 at 11:48:00AM +0100, Vincent Donnefort wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2026 at 06:04:06PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > > > On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 at 12:33:07 +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Sep 26, 2026 at 05:43:08PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > > > > > Looks like you dropped me from your reply. > > > > > > > > > > Huh, that's weird. If I hit reply-all ('g') in mutt, it moves the entire > > > > > CC list to To: and drops you. I suspect the same thing happened to Thierry > > > > > when he replied here: > > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/arJcN60nagFKXj2Q@orome/ > > > > > > > > > > I can't figure out why that's happening :/ > > > > > I manually tried to fix the To: and Cc: lines in this message. > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 at 15:55:59 +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > > > > I spoke to Brendan at LPC (?) last year but this doesn't really work > > > > > > > for arm64 because it relies on being able to unmap arbitrary parts of > > > > > > > the linear map, which isn't generally possible unless you force pte-level > > > > > > > mappings for everything, which is prohibitive for perf/power. > > > > > > > > > > > > As per the cover letter it's about allocating pages that are not present > > > > > > in the direct map. This essentially fits the protected DMABufs use-case > > > > > > where we don't want any kernel mapping to exist at any time. Bufers > > > > > > allocated from protected DMABufs are only meant to be accessed by the > > > > > > TEE implementation or HW accelerators like in the secure media pipeline. > > > > > > > > > > That sounds like it should probably build on top of this series, then. > > > > > > > > The main problem I see with this series is it tries to move from the generic > > > > CMA allocator to a reserved FF-A CMA pool which again comes from the > > > > DT. We already support reserved pool allocations via "no-map" which are > > > > discovered dynamically from OP-TEE. > > > > > > I can't think of a way around a DT declaration. We need to know what region is > > > PTE-level before the direct map is installed and of_reserved_mem is very handy > > > for that purpose. And as this PTE-level mapping is costly we certainly only want > > > to enable it for platforms that absolutely need it. > > > > > I am rather thinking of a way to turn the default CMA allocator to be > PTE-level mapped. Since the overall idea for this dynamic protected > buffers was to reuse memory efficiently, otherwise the reserved buffer > approach is already there to use as "no-map" via DT. When the default CMA allocator is setup, it is already too late (dma_contiguous_reserve() is called after map_mem()). I am not sure this can be reordered easily due to the dependency on dma_limits_init(). So the only case it would work would be when a reserved memory has set "linux,cma-default". -- Vincent > > If we can have "cma_unmap" cmdline option alongside "cma" then it can > turn the existing default CMA allocator to support unmapping buffers. > Not requiring a DT change at all, although we can have the DT property > for the default pool too if platforms want to opt for. > > > > > > > > > If we can rather support a generic CMA like allocator for arm64 which > > > > can support unmapped allocations then I am all for it. These platform > > > > specific reserved pools isn't a scalable solution. > > > > > > What do you mean by generic CMA allocator here? An extension to > > > shared-dma-pool? Or having the CMA automatically doing the unmap/map on > > > cma_alloc() cma_release()? > > > > > > Right now I have created an API for the unmapping/remapping part. It adds a > > > burden on the caller, but the alternative solution is introducing post-alloc > > > pre-dealloc callbacks in the CMA, which looked a bit overkilled to me when > > > the users of that "ffa-pool" are only optee and the nvidia video dma-buf heap. > > > > > I am not too worried about where the actual implementation lives but > looks like CMA driver to be the better place. I think use-cases like > guest_memfd proposed as a user for __GFP_UNMAPPED on arm64 will also be > looking for this feature. > > -Sumit > > > > > > > > > > > > > You could allocate the DMABufs from a CMA region that has no linear alias. > > > > > > > > Allocation from generic CMA pool is already the case here: > > > > > > > > tee_shm_alloc_dma_mem() -> > > > > dma_alloc_pages() > > > > > > > > Do you mean it's just fine to unmap buffers allocated from generic CMA > > > > region since it doesn't have any linear alias? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vincent's series tackles that by using a pool so that only that part of > > > > > > > memory requires the pte-level mappings in the linear map. That's the > > > > > > > whole point of it, so I don't think it makes sense to drop it in favour > > > > > > > of Brendan's approach (which doesn't work). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For protected DMABufs, we even don't require any pte-level mappings in > > > > > > linear map. The whole idea of mapping and unmapping is just a bottleneck > > > > > > for performance sensitive secure media pipeline use-cases. That's why if > > > > > > we can support __GFP_UNMAPPED with the memory allocator on arm64 would > > > > > > be the best fit for this use-case. > > > > > > > > > > The point is that you will require pte-level mappings for the linear map > > > > > if you want to unmap from it at runtime on arm64. If you don't, then you > > > > > can end up needing to split a block mapping (e.g. pmd-level) when you > > > > > decide to unmap only part of it and there isn't a safe way to do that on > > > > > arm64 without transiently unmapping the entire block, which can lead to > > > > > fatal translation faults during that window. > > > > > > > > I agree with you here, what I am rather trying to find if on arm64 there > > > > is any possibilty to have a generic allocator for unmapped pages. That's > > > > the use-case here as well as what Brendan't patch-set was trying to address. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now the question is why arm64 can't support __GFP_UNMAPPED similar to > > > > > > how Brendan is doing it for x86? > > > > > > > > > > Because arm64 != x86? Presumably x86 doesn't have the strict > > > > > break-before-make requirements we have on arm64. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, sounds like you are eluding to that the generic MM flag > > > > __GFP_UNMAPPED being proposed can't be supported on arm64, right? > > > > > > > > -Sumit > > > > -- > > Vincent