[PATCH 2/4] bpf: Add dmabuf iterator

[Song Liu]

On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 8:25 AM T.J. Mercier <tjmercier at google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 1:26 PM Song Liu <song at kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 9:05 AM T.J. Mercier <tjmercier at google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 9:56 PM Song Liu <song at kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 7:09 PM T.J. Mercier <tjmercier at google.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 6:26 PM Song Liu <song at kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here is another rookie question, it appears to me there is a file descriptor
> > > > > > associated with each DMA buffer, can we achieve the same goal with
> > > > > > a task-file iterator?
> > > > >
> > > > > That would find almost all of them, but not the kernel-only
> > > > > allocations. (kernel_rss in the dmabuf_dump output I attached earlier.
> > > > > If there's a leak, it's likely to show up in kernel_rss because some
> > > > > driver forgot to release its reference(s).) Also wouldn't that be a
> > > > > ton more iterations since we'd have to visit every FD to find the
> > > > > small portion that are dmabufs? I'm not actually sure if buffers that
> > > > > have been mapped, and then have had their file descriptors closed
> > > > > would show up in task_struct->files; if not I think that would mean
> > > > > scanning both files and vmas for each task.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think scanning all FDs to find a small portion of specific FDs
> > > > is a real issue. We have a tool that scans all FDs in the system and
> > > > only dump data for perf_event FDs. I think it should be easy to
> > > > prototype a tool by scanning all files and all vmas. If that turns out
> > > > to be very slow, which I highly doubt will be, we can try other
> > > > approaches.
> > >
> > > But this will not find *all* the buffers, and that defeats the purpose
> > > of having the iterator.
> >
> > Do you mean this approach cannot get kernel only allocations? If
> > that's the case, we probably do need a separate iterator. I am
> > interested in other folks thoughts on this.
>
> Correct.

I read more into the code, and realized that udmabuf fd is not for
the same file here. I guess this also justifies a separate iterator.

Thanks,
Song