[Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 5/9] xen/gntdev: Allow mappings for DMA buffers

[Oleksandr Andrushchenko]

On 06/11/2018 07:51 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>> On 06/08/2018 10:21 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> On 06/08/2018 01:59 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>       @@ -325,6 +401,14 @@ static int map_grant_pages(struct
>>>>>>>>>>> grant_map
>>>>>>>>>>> *map)
>>>>>>>>>>>               map->unmap_ops[i].handle =
>>>>>>>>>>> map->map_ops[i].handle;
>>>>>>>>>>>               if (use_ptemod)
>>>>>>>>>>>                   map->kunmap_ops[i].handle =
>>>>>>>>>>> map->kmap_ops[i].handle;
>>>>>>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_XEN_GRANT_DMA_ALLOC
>>>>>>>>>>> +        else if (map->dma_vaddr) {
>>>>>>>>>>> +            unsigned long mfn;
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> +            mfn = __pfn_to_mfn(page_to_pfn(map->pages[i]));
>>>>>>>>>> Not pfn_to_mfn()?
>>>>>>>>> I'd love to, but pfn_to_mfn is only defined for x86, not ARM:
>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>> and [2]
>>>>>>>>> Thus,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> drivers/xen/gntdev.c:408:10: error: implicit declaration of
>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>> ‘pfn_to_mfn’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>>>>>>>>         mfn = pfn_to_mfn(page_to_pfn(map->pages[i]));
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, I'll keep __pfn_to_mfn
>>>>>>>> How will this work on non-PV x86?
>>>>>>> So, you mean I need:
>>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_X86
>>>>>>> mfn = pfn_to_mfn(page_to_pfn(map->pages[i]));
>>>>>>> #else
>>>>>>> mfn = __pfn_to_mfn(page_to_pfn(map->pages[i]));
>>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd rather fix it in ARM code. Stefano, why does ARM uses the
>>>>>> underscored version?
>>>>> Do you want me to add one more patch for ARM to wrap __pfn_to_mfn
>>>>> with static inline for ARM? e.g.
>>>>> static inline ...pfn_to_mfn(...)
>>>>> {
>>>>>       __pfn_to_mfn();
>>>>> }
>>>> A Xen on ARM guest doesn't actually know the mfns behind its own
>>>> pseudo-physical pages. This is why we stopped using pfn_to_mfn and
>>>> started using pfn_to_bfn instead, which will generally return "pfn",
>>>> unless the page is a foreign grant. See include/xen/arm/page.h.
>>>> pfn_to_bfn was also introduced on x86. For example, see the usage of
>>>> pfn_to_bfn in drivers/xen/swiotlb-xen.c. Otherwise, if you don't care
>>>> about other mapped grants, you can just use pfn_to_gfn, that always
>>>> returns pfn.
>>> I think then this code needs to use pfn_to_bfn().
>> Ok
>>>
>>>> Also, for your information, we support different page granularities in
>>>> Linux as a Xen guest, see the comment at include/xen/arm/page.h:
>>>>
>>>>     /*
>>>>      * The pseudo-physical frame (pfn) used in all the helpers is always
>>>> based
>>>>      * on Xen page granularity (i.e 4KB).
>>>>      *
>>>>      * A Linux page may be split across multiple non-contiguous Xen page so
>>>> we
>>>>      * have to keep track with frame based on 4KB page granularity.
>>>>      *
>>>>      * PV drivers should never make a direct usage of those helpers
>>>> (particularly
>>>>      * pfn_to_gfn and gfn_to_pfn).
>>>>      */
>>>>
>>>> A Linux page could be 64K, but a Xen page is always 4K. A granted page
>>>> is also 4K. We have helpers to take into account the offsets to map
>>>> multiple Xen grants in a single Linux page, see for example
>>>> drivers/xen/grant-table.c:gnttab_foreach_grant. Most PV drivers have
>>>> been converted to be able to work with 64K pages correctly, but if I
>>>> remember correctly gntdev.c is the only remaining driver that doesn't
>>>> support 64K pages yet, so you don't have to deal with it if you don't
>>>> want to.
>>> I believe somewhere in this series there is a test for PAGE_SIZE vs.
>>> XEN_PAGE_SIZE. Right, Oleksandr?
>> Not in gntdev. You might have seen this in xen-drmfront/xen-sndfront,
>> but I didn't touch gntdev for that. Do you want me to add yet another patch
>> in the series to check for that?
> gntdev.c is already not capable of handling PAGE_SIZE != XEN_PAGE_SIZE,
> so you are not going to break anything that is not already broken :-) If
> your new gntdev.c code relies on PAGE_SIZE == XEN_PAGE_SIZE, it might be
> good to add an in-code comment about it, just to make it easier to fix
> the whole of gntdev.c in the future.
>
Yes, I just mean I can add something like [1] as a separate patch to the 
series,
so we are on the safe side here
>
>>> Thanks for the explanation.
[1] 
https://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm-misc/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/xen/xen_drm_front.c#n813