Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] PCI/P2PDMA: Refactor to separate core P2P functionality from memory allocation

Leon Romanovsky
2025-09-28T08:15:17Z

On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 08:13:50AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 20:02:36 -0300
> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 04:31:31PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 08:53:08 -0300
> > > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 10:03:14AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > It would at least make sense to me then to store the provider on the
> > > > > > vfio_pci_dma_buf object at the time of the get feature call rather than
> > > > > > vfio_pci_core_init_dev() though. That would eliminate patch 08/ and
> > > > > > the inline #ifdefs.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll change it now. If "enable" function goes to be "get" function, we
> > > > > won't need to store anything in vfio_pci_dma_buf too. At the end, we
> > > > > have exactly two lines "provider = priv->vdev->provider[priv->bar];",
> > > > > which can easily be changed to be "provider = pcim_p2pdma_provider(priv->vdev->pdev, priv->bar)"
> > > >
> > > > Not without some kind of locking change. I'd keep the
> > > > priv->vdev->provider[priv->bar] because setup during probe doesn't
> > > > need special locking.
> > >
> > > Why do we need to store the provider on the vfio_pci_core_device at
> > > probe though, we can get it later via pcim_p2pdma_provider().
> >
> > Because you'd need some new locking to prevent races.
>
> The race is avoided if we simply call pcim_p2pdma_provider() during
> probe. We don't need to save the returned provider. That's where it
> seems like pulling the setup out to a separate function would eliminate
> this annoying BAR# arg.
>
> > Besides, the model here should be to call the function once during
> > probe and get back the allocated provider. The fact internally it is
> > kind of nutzo still shouldn't leak out as a property of the ABI.
> >
> > I would like to remove this weird behavior where it caches things
> > inside the struct device. That's not normal for an API to do that, it
> > is only done for the genalloc path that this doesn't use.
>
> My goal in caching the provider on the vfio p2pdma object was to avoid
> caching it on the vfio_pci_core_device, but now we're storing it on the
> struct device, the vfio_pci_core_device, AND the vfio p2pdma object.
> Given the current state that it's stored on the struct device, I think
> we only need a setup call during probe (that could be stubbed out
> rather than #ifdef'd), then cache the provider on the vfio p2pdma
> object when a dmabuf is configured. Thanks,

I can do it.

Thanks

>
> Alex
>