[PATCH v6 4/4] RDMA/mlx5: Support dma-buf based userspace memory region

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 08:33:52PM +0000, Xiong, Jianxin wrote:
> > > @@ -801,6 +816,52 @@ static int pagefault_implicit_mr(struct mlx5_ib_mr *imr,
> > >   * Returns:
> > >   *  -EFAULT: The io_virt->bcnt is not within the MR, it covers pages that are
> > >   *           not accessible, or the MR is no longer valid.
> > > + *  -EAGAIN: The operation should be retried
> > > + *
> > > + *  >0: Number of pages mapped
> > > + */
> > > +static int pagefault_dmabuf_mr(struct mlx5_ib_mr *mr, struct ib_umem *umem,
> > > +			       u64 io_virt, size_t bcnt, u32 *bytes_mapped,
> > > +			       u32 flags)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct ib_umem_dmabuf *umem_dmabuf = to_ib_umem_dmabuf(umem);
> > > +	u64 user_va;
> > > +	u64 end;
> > > +	int npages;
> > > +	int err;
> > > +
> > > +	if (unlikely(io_virt < mr->mmkey.iova))
> > > +		return -EFAULT;
> > > +	if (check_add_overflow(io_virt - mr->mmkey.iova,
> > > +			       (u64)umem->address, &user_va))
> > > +		return -EFAULT;
> > > +	/* Overflow has alreddy been checked at the umem creation time */
> > > +	end = umem->address + umem->length;
> > > +	if (unlikely(user_va >= end || end  - user_va < bcnt))
> > > +		return -EFAULT;
> > 
> > Why duplicate this sequence? Caller does it
> 
> The sequence in the caller is for umem_odp only.

Nothing about umem_odp in this code though??

> > >  	/* prefetch with write-access must be supported by the MR */
> > >  	if (advice == IB_UVERBS_ADVISE_MR_ADVICE_PREFETCH_WRITE &&
> > > -	    !odp->umem.writable)
> > > +	    !mr->umem->writable)
> > 
> > ??

> There is no need to use umem_odp here, mr->umem is the same as &odp->umem. 
> This change makes the code works for both umem_odp and umem_dmabuf.

Ok

Can you please also think about how to test this? I very much prefer
to see new pyverbs tests for new APIs. 

Distros are running the rdma-core test suite, if you want this to work
widely we need a public test for it.

Thanks,
Jason