From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=209.85.218.54 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793199043; b=QB/vFh3zTX7lyrb3+MVbdBcvwQbCbf8munJGnoIXmd+zU7kD+jGskkG04xLZ/3O10Lap DmBKUxyAc97xyk2bLdYArOlvWRgXU6ugYu+UpimR+xx4P7d0QEhp2XNFNagqqXnvGculi 4p0JP5cmJ4g/NatswBjQA8DbU18KoWcRHch95Lmmow+Aj0bEpaw3p0zmAvOQ0vSvUI2eO 9B69IQNTbU3RO8dz9T59vWaJO348vRHiZJDNFD7tgMdbO0fmMOLywF8FBHL6hJFSb2GiR k7XZMojO8vRqP5KBDkiA3KJk0awfL5mbuIWRr5JaCr2j+PfjmOjFoXpGvt+B+G+SfIg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793199043; h=DMARC-Filter:Received:DKIM-Signature:X-Google-DKIM-Signature: X-Forwarded-Encrypted:X-Gm-Message-State:X-Gm-Gg:X-Received:Received: Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; bh=HF1altOhSOliHgMv/AZ/rbBGnqwe/0k0dVHlSjsTcys=; b=pA0nJrj7o3+jZL6S/QbP56yN+8Tq1+kx2DyhSVtGXqU2nPonYOW72uqeU1vb6WnThg8D 9TfG1CLX4lfALohscqVxR0tdIvygLJMGeHkkkUMo00yEN2KAq1I6G47drj2+Fh3+GtnTr syD0Q3g9JWS/vwQT5Mcbo8BhYuB9/giaUmIbIEjzGhDEg8z/cHXMeRNxNUQhPM5uuCqmC OoCd9IHIQM1OqNSIlWi3FVK+bERgJMkJP9fKU6UvAbFXTqrf2yaSpLnT2/FJAe+LKlQij 2QZFhwkccLQJpwCXEwI1bTccyvvJxModMWPHZSK4SHAfFSAjirqtmHpOpMNRB3Yni9Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=google.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20260707 header.b=Y2RQn6fs; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=209.85.218.54 Received: from mail-ej1-f54.google.com (mail-ej1-f54.google.com [209.85.218.54]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 652C5606A31D for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2026 14:50:43 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 652C5606A31D Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20260707 header.b=Y2RQn6fs Received: by mail-ej1-f54.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-c434376dbebso202721866b.1 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2026 07:50:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20260707; t=1793199042; x=1793803842; darn=vger.kernel.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=HF1altOhSOliHgMv/AZ/rbBGnqwe/0k0dVHlSjsTcys=; b=Y2RQn6fsIZRhcK8lV3PlbyIGDGsNrvP/2tFWapgKkI5LPIPXQUseGChPE9UjL4RgFG MKBrm/Dn2RcCEFFOC11nYOn+JqK0E8vlMIaAMsudPBvt5aYdEY7RvIWXR3hlLqG3m4I1 1W2dHpOnuVTz8y903UuAZYH3z4w2Cx/jcfuJ3Uc5vFEzmjsoE6P4BzQ1j8nsOwjp4xTz r3/2eYqHv2zPbm51Rk4CRERbnjRZMzhxiIlFJUNsGnR2khNsn6uZM/hLALkaDbrUyF4b y0JDnJLrbelAqQjHtkbOhSl0JrGrMndTeRx7wyJepirTFwHMo8rIdUGRCTN29i2yaXoW cdbw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1793199042; x=1793803842; 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=HF1altOhSOliHgMv/AZ/rbBGnqwe/0k0dVHlSjsTcys=; b=euxOU0JJhlE6dy6xcTGzCyXFXYMLFAlMcN/DirTPGNtKO7wNIE0cEIXx12+NfwTIMO O8Xfw/m6GuLpbAIyFzfABw0NkO+ZOiqlwaI8h1YgXYtwx62h9PMQvvs+aNq/cMqn8Jez YrtIlCAjBOBaGyOzd6oQF8tvQiZOQKIAZRHIepEQH0cIACNR/TiZZPlWyg2VqQqAo1F9 KtoS5mSH00n+wzYCr3p3RtFzDYzzFV84akAjYFGO+GiR4kqsYSaBmE0xjJn69hxYmNqa QOFVyxaS4efMP30KZuUK/jvKORuF06ein7AXcyndTygjOO4Ka98EkzI1afIMLNXwSEro Jj6A== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvBzjJEszrGr/X4hgCKlsLnvow6b/OVKIFvq3StfSf3emUjA+PirB6Us5qw6TbcYnNjoqmYyjdYd+00yb@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFq9FYLsbS7E5IcO5Nx01k5y/q4YclKQqa0sufJptjr9c1PbFpUz7Tli vTriwcAaAgtoVI5Nss+VjX63KksF47rk1ut/U39IlKkOXb6cbetqzsBH4nhj8rztBA== X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou2MZ4UX8DuxPfgAnOTw0IHtI1v3dqKuv1suG6sPUarQSqMQmgGnDERSjVY03Jq qypyVGHKbD6ktOXEFycWewqQgaLaqDRuuj8C6ik75i4dzaIzF6pfh4Ujx2cUAIu4i2VL6oJTgcA UvzAjKD+RfoFND3Zu1LPFzUGus6ufwo5vQb8cOjCUs9ul9AgD8LKj/y1OfTiTWUMnrOKm0REmBb dKCee+kRZvvzmBNGW4d03ff4XjUfNSqjLtMAO1EsB4VAVIUC20QeCh8qzv/H3AZ3UB/yo7Sffht F+YvHq8UwzxglJTsiaZI3OLSE0v25ribuGyad35ow51yb3upKDxje5UedOXitIXtd1kJB+TmqCR 2JUEc4jy0AfWOAMdWSuMJwVz/4kJFF1BiswS7Zj355U7GgwVq5ltQHZc5WdvB3ApFxCh8g3i8B8 Yfu4pKqbDyeNlyWNZBds2BjWcbhQgjyClSBBsTy24swEQK8tW5v6zxkAUp/NKuDe7kFjzdSF5Te klKjYLDNyZcuwso0Ca2jsQJBbFP5zs0djwIuLxS2EDPqcoGyQ6da0FGpB/nqGiN2WyxxoxDa/ku gpPY/cj6BjUyteYJhTQqTtAmII2yR6W/sLkguycFwLFAGGlg63ussISMK3EcjgS4pTbGtUy+UgJ TB8jZ2ppTPQM= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:99c9:b0:c29:4b57:503e with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-c49c620c08emr153260566b.1.1793199040959; Wed, 28 Oct 2026 07:50:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com (0.182.34.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.34.182.0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a640c23a62f3a-c46bd35004asm607338466b.4.2026.10.28.07.50.39 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 28 Oct 2026 07:50:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2026 14:50:36 +0000 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: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 03:26:30PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 at 10:37:59 +0100, Vincent Donnefort wrote: > > 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(). > > Yeah I saw that constraint too, let's leave it for future extension > then although having this reordering dependency fixed will be ideal. > > > > > So the only case it would work would be when a reserved memory has set > > "linux,cma-default". > > > > Let's rather just turn DT based default CMA pool to support PTE-level > mapping and keep it configurable via Kconfig or cmdline or DT. If we need a DT declaration anyway, a Kconfig and a cmdline option aren't really necessary. Also, Rob wasn't very keen on having a DT option for the reserved memory and suggested to have a compatible string instead [1]. So perhaps we could have a a separate driver that handles the unmapping. linux,cma { compatible = "shared-dma-pool", "unmap-on-alloc"; reusable; linux,cma-default; ... } That "unmap-on-alloc" driver sets the memblock flags and register some cma hooks (to be defined) for cma_alloc/cma_free where it unmaps/re-maps into the linear map. The nice property is optee won't need to be modified anymore. The downside is the entire pool is now mapped at PTE-level. [1] http://lore.kernel.org/all/20260902172436.GB1440252-robh@kernel.org/ -- Vincent > > -Sumit > > > > > > > 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 > >