Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-145143-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 14:50:23 +0200
From: Petr =?UTF-8?B?VGVzYcWZw61r?= <petr@tesarici.cz>
To: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@outlook.com>
Cc: "mhkelley58@gmail.com" <mhkelley58@gmail.com>, "robin.murphy@arm.com"
 <robin.murphy@arm.com>, "joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>,
 "will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>, "jgross@suse.com" <jgross@suse.com>,
 "sstabellini@kernel.org" <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
 "oleksandr_tyshchenko@epam.com" <oleksandr_tyshchenko@epam.com>,
 "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de>, "m.szyprowski@samsung.com"
 <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>, "iommu@lists.linux.dev"
 <iommu@lists.linux.dev>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org"
 <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org"
 <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, "roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com"
 <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] swiotlb: Remove alloc_size argument to
 swiotlb_tbl_map_single()
Message-ID: <20240415145023.78e7ce97@meshulam.tesarici.cz>
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR02MB4157C8206FE193B2C5B2A93FD4092@SN6PR02MB4157.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20240408041142.665563-1-mhklinux@outlook.com>
	<20240415134624.22092bb0@meshulam.tesarici.cz>
	<SN6PR02MB4157C8206FE193B2C5B2A93FD4092@SN6PR02MB4157.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 12:23:22 +0000
Michael Kelley <mhklinux@outlook.com> wrote:

> From: Petr Tesa=C5=99=C3=ADk <petr@tesarici.cz> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2=
024 4:46 AM
> >=20
> > Hi Michael,
> >=20
> > sorry for taking so long to answer. Yes, there was no agreement on the
> > removal of the "dir" parameter, but I'm not sure it's because of
> > symmetry with swiotlb_sync_*(), because the topic was not really
> > discussed.
> >=20
> > The discussion was about the KUnit test suite and whether direction is
> > a property of the bounce buffer or of each sync operation. Since DMA API
> > defines associates each DMA buffer with a direction, the direction
> > parameter passed to swiotlb_sync_*() should match what was passed to
> > swiotlb_tbl_map_single(), because that's how it is used by the generic
> > DMA code. In other words, if the parameter is kept, it should be kept
> > to match dma_map_*().
> >=20
> > However, there is also symmetry with swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single(). This
> > function does use the parameter for the final sync. I believe there
> > should be a matching initial sync in swiotlb_tbl_map_single(). In
> > short, the buffer sync for DMA non-coherent devices should be moved from
> > swiotlb_map() to swiotlb_tbl_map_single(). If this sync is not needed,
> > then the caller can (and should) include DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC in
> > the flags parameter.
> >=20
> > To sum it up:
> >=20
> > * Do *NOT* remove the "dir" parameter.
> > * Let me send a patch which moves the initial buffer sync.
> >  =20
>=20
> I'm not seeing the need to move the initial buffer sync.  All
> callers of swiotlb_tbl_map_single() already have a subsequent
> check for a non-coherent device, and a call to=20
> arch_sync_dma_for_device().  And the Xen code has some=20
> special handling that probably shouldn't go in
> swiotlb_tbl_map_single().  Or am I missing something?

Oh, sure, there's nothing broken ATM. It's merely a cleanup. The API is
asymmetric and thus confusing. You get a final sync by default if you
call swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single(), but you don't get an initial sync by
default if you call swiotlb_tbl_map_single(). This is difficult to
remember, so potential new users of the API may incorrectly assume that
an initial sync is done, or that a final sync is not done.

And yes, when moving the code, all current users of
swiotlb_tbl_map_single() should specify DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC.

Petr T