Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] mm: vmalloc: export find_vm_area()

Leon Romanovsky
2026-01-28T11:13:50Z

On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 11:45:58AM +0800, D. Wythe wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 03:34:17PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 24, 2026 at 10:57:54PM +0800, D. Wythe wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2026 at 11:48:59AM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > Hello, D. Wythe!
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 07:55:17PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 04:23:48PM +0800, D. Wythe wrote:
> > > > > > > find_vm_area() provides a way to find the vm_struct associated with a
> > > > > > > virtual address. Export this symbol to modules so that modularized
> > > > > > > subsystems can perform lookups on vmalloc addresses.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: D. Wythe <alibuda@linux.alibaba.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > mm/vmalloc.c | 1 +
> > > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > > > > > index ecbac900c35f..3eb9fe761c34 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > > > > > @@ -3292,6 +3292,7 @@ struct vm_struct *find_vm_area(const void *addr)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > return va->vm;
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(find_vm_area);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > This is internal. We can not just export it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Uladzislau Rezki
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Uladzislau,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for the feedback. I agree that we should avoid exposing
> > > > > internal implementation details like struct vm_struct to external
> > > > > subsystems.
> > > > >
> > > > > Following Christoph's suggestion, I'm planning to encapsulate the page
> > > > > order lookup into a minimal helper instead:
> > > > >
> > > > > unsigned int vmalloc_page_order(const void *addr){
> > > > > struct vm_struct *vm;
> > > > > vm = find_vm_area(addr);
> > > > > return vm ? vm->page_order : 0;
> > > > > }
> > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vmalloc_page_order);
> > > > >
> > > > > Does this approach look reasonable to you? It would keep the vm_struct
> > > > > layout private while satisfying the optimization needs of SMC.
> > > > >
> > > > Could you please clarify why you need info about page_order? I have not
> > > > looked at your second patch.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Uladzislau Rezki
> > >
> > > Hi Uladzislau,
> > >
> > > This stems from optimizing memory registration in SMC-R. To provide the
> > > RDMA hardware with direct access to memory buffers, we must register
> > > them with the NIC. During this process, the hardware generates one MTT
> > > entry for each physically contiguous block. Since these hardware entries
> > > are a finite and scarce resource, and SMC currently defaults to a 4KB
> > > registration granularity, a single 2MB buffer consumes 512 entries. In
> > > high-concurrency scenarios, this inefficiency quickly exhausts NIC
> > > resources and becomes a major bottleneck for system scalability.
> >
> > I believe this complexity can be avoided by using the RDMA MR pool API,
> > as other ULPs do, for example NVMe.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
>
> Hi Leon,
>
> Am I correct in assuming you are suggesting mr_pool to limit the number
> of MRs as a way to cap MTTE consumption?

I don't see this a limit, but something that is considered standard
practice to reduce MTT consumption.

>
> However, our goal is to maximize the total registered memory within
> the MTTE limits rather than to cap it. In SMC-R, each connection
> occupies a configurable, fixed-size registered buffer; consequently,
> the more memory we can register, the more concurrent connections
> we can support.

It is not cap, but more efficient use of existing resources.

>
> By leveraging vmalloc_huge() and the proposed helper to increase the
> page_size in ib_map_mr_sg(), each MTTE covers a much larger contiguous
> physical block. This significantly reduces the total number of entries
> required to map the same amount of memory, allowing us to serve more
> connections under the same hardware constraints
>
> D. Wythe