Re: [PATCH v1 00/17] Provide a new two step DMA mapping API

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>]

On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 04:05:00PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 11:02:26AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > It is fully OK? Can't dma_map_page() trigger swiotlb? It must not do
> > that for P2P. How does it know the difference if it just gets a phys?
> 
> dma_direct_map_page checks for p2p pages in the swiotlb bounce
> path already in the current kernel, and dma_map_sg relies on exactly
> that check to prevent bouncing for p2p.

I'm asking how it will work if you change the struct page argument to
physical, because today dma_direct_map_page() has:

		if (is_pci_p2pdma_page(page))
			return DMA_MAPPING_ERROR;

Which is exactly the sorts of things I'm looking at when when I say to
get rid of struct page.

What I'm thinking about is replacing code like the above with something like:

		if (p2p_provider)
			return DMA_MAPPING_ERROR;

And the caller is the one that would have done is_pci_p2pdma_page()
and either passes p2p_provider=NULL or page->pgmap->p2p_provider.

Anyhow, I hope Leon will attempt this once this is settled and it will
make more sense in patches. I'm just brainstorming how I've been
thinking of it.

Another option would be some 'is_pci_p2pdma_page_phys(phys)', but I
think that is going to be worse performance than managing a
p2p_provider pointer in the mapping call chain explicitly.

Jason