Linaro-mm-sig

linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org

15 participants
3707 discussions

[PATCH v5 00/18] PCI/P2PDMA: Route peer-to-peer DMA by TLP class

by Leon Romanovsky

PCI P2PDMA applies Request and Completion Redirect throughout both paths. This misclassifies asymmetric and nested switches, and reports one answer for every kind of TLP. Three ACS controls act on TLP attributes the client chooses rather than on the topology: Translation Blocking and Direct Translated P2P act on a Request's Address Type, and Completion Redirect skips Completions carrying Relaxed Ordering. Evaluate each direction at the path divergence, decide every class from the one walk, expose the provider to dma-buf importers, and let mlx5 ask rather than assume. Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro(a)nvidia.com> --- Changes in v5: - Rebase on the posted fixes. - Dropped tags from changed patches. - Remove Egress Control Vector interpretation and coverage. - Keep enabled Egress Control conservative as a Request redirect. - Use pci_dbg()/dev_dbg() for diagnostics and drop the "debug" prefix. - Removed code comments from "Document the pdev->p2pdma lifetime and RCU rules" patch and reduced description to actual lifetime explanation. - Added note that Linux assumes that TLPs are in strict-ordering and untranslated. - Added code to calculate p2p paths per-TLP type. - Converted mlx5 to use that new proposed API. - Link to https://patch.msgid.link/20260821-fix-p2p-acs-v4-0-v4-0-94426b96de73@nvidia… Changes in v4: - Reject ACS Violations and unreadable routing state instead of treating them as host-bridge redirects - Added Tested-by tags from Tushar Dave - Added support to asymmetric ACS routing - Limited redirect checks to the two ports at the path divergence - Added standalone ACS routing diagnostics for hardware retesting - Dropped " PCI: Account for Direct Translated P2P in ACS isolation checks" patch - Link to v3: https://patch.msgid.link/20260811-fix-p2p-acs-v3-0-efc488ee7c03@nvidia.com Changes in v3: - Fixed pci_p2pdma_add_resource() error unwinding - Made pdev->p2pdma teardown wait unconditionally for RCU readers - Restricted pci_p2pmem_find_many() to pool-backed providers - Documented the pdev->p2pdma lifetime and RCU rules - Fixed calc_map_type_and_dist() handling of the verbose argument - Required the ACS port and target to share a bus before indexing the Egress Control Vector - Gave pci_acs_enabled() and pci_acs_path_enabled() a scope, so the ACS Direct Translated P2P rule no longer stops pci_enable_pasid() from enabling PASID - Dropped "Report ACS ports when the paths share no upstream bridge": the mapping type cannot change without a shared upstream bridge, so the pci=disable_acs_redir= hint was not actionable there and the ACS walk only cost config space reads - Folded the Request Redirect rule into pci_acs_rr_ineffective(), so pci_acs_flags_enabled() and the Intel SPT PCH quirk share one copy - Renamed pci_acs_egress_ctrl_set() to pci_acs_egress_ctrl_is_set(), it reads the bit rather than setting it - Reworded the blocked-path warning: ACS may also leave the direct route indeterminate rather than blocked - Added KUnit coverage for the shared-bus guard, a device with no ACS capability and an unreadable ACS Control register - Added the missing Fixes: tags, a second one on the pci_p2pdma_add_resource() unwinding fix (the dangling devres action dates to f58ef9d1d135) and one on the Egress Control isolation change - Link to v2: https://patch.msgid.link/20260806-fix-p2p-acs-v2-0-0cec14812965@nvidia.com Changes in v2: - Added Logan's ROB tags - Added commas in Documentation patch - Link to v1: https://patch.msgid.link/20260802-fix-p2p-acs-v1-0-a7c5eb64fff6@nvidia.com --- Leon Romanovsky (18): PCI/P2PDMA: Document pdev->p2pdma lifetime rules PCI/P2PDMA: Document the TLP attribute assumptions PCI/P2PDMA: Derive routing from directional ACS controls PCI: Reject unreadable ACS controls in isolation checks PCI/P2PDMA: Evaluate ACS controls at the path divergence PCI/P2PDMA: Document directional ACS routing PCI/P2PDMA: Collect the path's ACS controls before deciding PCI/P2PDMA: Answer routing per TLP class PCI/P2PDMA: Route Relaxed Ordering Completions directly PCI/P2PDMA: Reject Translated Requests blocked by Translation Blocking PCI/P2PDMA: Route Translated Requests under Direct Translated P2P PCI/P2PDMA: Log detailed ACS routing diagnostics PCI/P2PDMA: Add KUnit tests for the ACS routing decisions PCI/P2PDMA: Test the ACS P2P routing walk PCI: Add KUnit coverage for ACS isolation checks PCI/P2PDMA: Document TLP-class routing dma-buf: Let importers ask how peer-to-peer traffic is routed RDMA/mlx5: Ask P2PDMA whether ATS takes a direct peer-to-peer route Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 9 +- Documentation/driver-api/pci/p2pdma.rst | 69 +++ drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf-mapping.c | 41 +- drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c | 1 + drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs.h | 1 - drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_std_types_dmabuf.c | 7 +- drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h | 36 +- drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mr.c | 40 ++ drivers/pci/Kconfig | 15 + drivers/pci/Makefile | 1 + drivers/pci/p2pdma.c | 637 +++++++++++++++++++--- drivers/pci/pci.c | 7 +- drivers/pci/pci.h | 26 + drivers/pci/pci_acs_test.c | 609 +++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/pci/quirks.c | 6 +- drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_dmabuf.c | 8 +- include/linux/dma-buf-mapping.h | 4 +- include/linux/dma-buf.h | 5 + include/linux/pci-p2pdma.h | 57 +- 19 files changed, 1440 insertions(+), 139 deletions(-) --- base-commit: 08dbfad3f5040f5bdb6c529da20d6d4e81fefd72 change-id: 20260821-fix-p2p-acs-v4-0-e72455e3a261 prerequisite-message-id: <20260830-batch-p2p-fixes-v1-0-5044e8dfbe2e(a)nvidia.com> prerequisite-patch-id: 6b25c7fcf164cdfc14e9fac5b908d97fcf6509d7 prerequisite-patch-id: 0d083c281001365aae4b35544cf28891a6ab9a96 prerequisite-patch-id: bfd9dabf271f3cc9a3a61f46387d20c20311363d prerequisite-patch-id: fad0275efc722830fc591509506c0a5e4f581073 prerequisite-patch-id: 0c83bee688fec1f6d1564654df7c630fa6a4a978 Best regards, -- Leon Romanovsky <leonro(a)nvidia.com>

2 months

Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: Make DMABUF_DEBUG default to y on DEBUG_KERNEL kernels

by Christian König

On 9/7/26 04:00, Karl Mehltretter wrote: > Commit 646013f513f3 ("dma-buf: enable DMABUF_DEBUG by default on DEBUG > kernels") changed the default of DMABUF_DEBUG to "y if DEBUG", but no > Kconfig symbol DEBUG exists, so the option has had no default since. > > Use DEBUG_KERNEL, the Kconfig symbol for a debug kernel. > > Fixes: 646013f513f3 ("dma-buf: enable DMABUF_DEBUG by default on DEBUG kernels") > Assisted-by: LLM > Signed-off-by: Karl Mehltretter <kmehltretter(a)gmail.com> Reviewed and pushed to drm-misc-fixes. Thanks, Christian. > --- > This enables the dma-buf debug checks on every CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL > configuration, which is what 646013f513f3 set out to do. If that is too > broad today, the alternative is to restore the previous > "default y if DMA_API_DEBUG". > > drivers/dma-buf/Kconfig | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/Kconfig b/drivers/dma-buf/Kconfig > index 7efc0f0d0712..e4f078a326a4 100644 > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/Kconfig > @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ config UDMABUF > config DMABUF_DEBUG > bool "DMA-BUF debug checks" > depends on DMA_SHARED_BUFFER > - default y if DEBUG > + default y if DEBUG_KERNEL > help > This option enables additional checks for DMA-BUF importers and > exporters. Specifically it validates that importers do not peek at the > > base-commit: 986c24e0fe44f844b44d365b71ce831947f50298 > -- > 2.53.0 >

2 months

Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] accel/qda: Qualcomm DSP Accelerator driver

by Bjorn Andersson

On Wed, Sep 09, 2026 at 02:48:17PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2026 at 05:44:10PM -0500, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 06:37:00PM +0530, Ekansh Gupta wrote: > > > On 20-08-2026 20:17, Rob Clark wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 11:15 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk(a)kernel.org> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> On 19/08/2026 17:48, Rob Clark wrote: > > > >>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 8:27 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk(a)kernel.org> wrote: > > > >>>> The rule of usptream development is that we do not accept duplicated > > > >>>> code, just because a vendor wants to write something new. This is > > > >>>> basically the concept applied all over the drivers tree, where we pushed > > > >>>> back against all sorts of duplications all over the vendors. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> What I miss in this thread is why would there be any exception here. We > > > >>>> do not grant exceptions from standard practices on "I want" reasons. > > > >>> > > > >>> I agree that we should not have duplicated drivers just for vendor > > > >>> lolz. But when it comes to adopting common frameworks and integrating > > > >>> better into the ecosystem, this doesn't seem like something we should > > > >>> actively discourage. I don't think this is a case of vendor lolz, but > > > >> > > > >> No one discourages it. Following standard Linux kernel practices and > > > >> requirements is not discouraging, do not twist the narrative here. > > > >> Again, it is standard upstream review telling that we do not duplicate > > > >> drivers. Ever, unless there is serious exception needed. > > > > > > > > I wasn't trying to twist the narrative, just trying to come up with a > > > > path forward that isn't "no" or "improve existing driver", since > > > > neither of those gets us towards a future using common frameworks. > > > > > > > >> I asked why there should be an exception granted? Is the reason for > > > >> exception following: > > > >> "We want to adopt common framework" > > > >> ? > > > > > > > > Possibly? But I don't think we want two drivers to be any sort of > > > > long term solution. (Ie. as long as venus/iris have co-exist.) > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> rather reacting to drm/accel emerging as the standard framework for > > > >>> this sort of driver. > > > >>> > > > >>> So how do we get from here to there? > > > >> > > > >> What is wrong with my proposal? > > > > > > > > Maybe I missed something, my understanding was your proposal was > > > > "Grow/replace/improve existing driver instead of coming with a > > > > duplicate".. grow or improve doesn't move us toward common > > > > frameworks. Maybe "replace" is a valid option. If there is something > > > > I missed, then I apologize. > > > > > > > > Options I can think of are: > > > > > > > > 1. Hardware cutoff.. new hw gets new driver, existing hw gets existing > > > > driver > > > > 2. Backwards compat chardev registered by new driver, providing existing > > > > UABI. I'm not 100% sure about the feasibility/drawbacks of this.. > > > > AFAIU the fastrpc folks where planning a backwards compat layer in > > > > userspace, so maybe it is possible. > > > > 3. exception? > > > > > > > > I'd like to know what the feasibility of #2 is, since at a high level > > > > that sounds like the best option. Possibly limit exposure of legacy > > > > UABI to existing hw so we don't get into a place of needing to extend > > > > the legacy UABI for new hw? > > > > > > > > But #1 sounds like a non-controversial place to start regardless. > > > > Possibly with #2 coming as followup and necessary step before eventual > > > > migration to new driver for existing hw? > > > > > > > > Even if we start with #2, how do we handle first-merge-window > > > > bugs/regressions without reverting addition of new driver and removal > > > > of old? It seems like we'd need a window of a couple release cycles > > > > where both drivers exist? > > > > > > > > Maybe others have other/better options in mind? > > > To all, I'm seeking on the approach I should follow to go ahead here. I > > > can work on implementing #1(as per Rob's list) with hw specific > > > compatible for v4 if it's acceptable. > > > > > > > I don't see any reason for you to define a "hw specific compatible", > > because as you have shown in this series (and as Rob point out), there's > > no difference in the "hardware". > > > > The only reason for your "hw specific compatible" is to make a software > > selection in Linux - and that's not what DeviceTree is for. > > That's not exactly true. There are protocol differences. For example, > polling mode is supported only since a certain timeline in the history. > Likewise other interface features are not supported on all the FastRPC > devices. For the polling mode support we were already beaten by the lack > of SoC-specific compats. > I can see the benefit of capturing some of the generational features in a compatible, like the changes related to address width. But for pure software features that doesn't have an actual bearing in the hardware, I'd prefer if we relied on dynamic discovery. But none of that applies to the question of "can I use compatible to select if we should use the new or old Linux driver". > > As such, I don't see that you have a DeviceTree problem at all, because > > this is a Linux-internal problem. > > > > > #2(compat driver) is something that we are still exploring as we > > > couldn't find any standard way to achieve it. We might start a separate > > > discussion for that once we have few possible designs with us. > > > > > > > This is the actual problem! > > > > We have existing user space that depends on the ioctl interface exposed > > by the current misc driver. You must not break these. > > This is clear. > > > Hardware cutoff is not a viable solution, because that's just a > > declaration that we'll let the old platforms rotten - or alternatively > > you commit to maintain two drivers to the very same feature and quality > > level. > > > > So the only reasonable solution is #2; from there it's a valid question > > if you reach that point my stepwise migrating the current misc driver > > that solution, or if you present a new driver with the fully backwards > > compatible interface, alongside the new ABI. > > I think the general direction was #3 (or #2.1): implement a shim layer > on top of the QDA driver as a separate module. Put all the historical > over-complicated solutions into that shim module and let it die at some > point. Current fastrpc driver lets userspace specify buffers in several > different ways, forcing the kernel driver to perform a lot of work > with buffer addresses. I don't think that this legacy code should be a > part of the QDA. It can go to qda-fastrpc-shim, keeping it out of the > kernel memory if it's not necessary. > > > But this does bring to a question which the cover letter should explain > > - but doesn't: what problem does this patch series actually solve? > > I agree that it should be a part of the cover letter. > > As a person who triggered this work, I can propose my reasons: > > - Current driver has over-complicated memory manager (both on the > userspace and on the kernel side). The userspace library is spaghetti, but when I wrote my own it turned out quite succinct. The ioctl structs certainly could have been cleaner, and documented, but it seems to me that a fair amount of the complexity comes from the different use cases - such as SMMU vs XPU, secure and unsecure buffers, remnants of now unsupported options. I'm presuming that QDA will need to adopt most of these, and that QDA support will be bolted into the spaghetti library. > Correspondng uAPI is not really > suitable for virtualization. Using GEM simplifies both the kernel > driver and uAPI. Also using handle-offset-length to specify the > buffers makes it easy to support virtual QDA devices. I'm looking forward to learn more about this! > > - Current driver predates the accel subsystem. Using common subsystem > simplifies reviews. The QDA driver has gotten several comments about > the usage of the DMA-BUFs. It'not unlikely that the same issues are > present in the current FastRPC driver, just being unnoticed. Yeah, this is unfortunate. It would certainly be nice to have a documented and clean ABI. > > - The ideas present in the current FastRPC driver also predate the > current design practices. The uAPI was created in the ad-hoc way, just > following the momentary needs. Driver code also shows the result of > that, having enough of the spaghetti code. > Yeah, again, this isn't desirable. > Given all of that, yes, it is possible to provide an evolution of the > FastRPC driver into the accel+shim, improve the code quality meanwhile > and end up with the good enough split. However I think that the path > taken would be longer and the net result might be worse. > > With all of that in mind, my suggestion is to continue working on the > QDA driver, get the core of it to integrate nicely with the accel and > DMA-BUF usage requirements and implement the (minimal?) fastrpc shim on > top of it. > If you believe this is the way to reach the proper design, then I won't object. My requirement is that my userspace continues to work when my distro suddenly switches FASTRPC=n/QDA=m. I have no problems with dropping the fastrpc driver once the QDA is drop-in-compatible. I'm also open to marking the compat layer deprecated and eventually drop it once we're certain that users have moved to a userspace that used the accel interface. But we can't merge the QDA driver as long as we believe that implementing a compat layer will be hard/impossible. Regards, Bjorn > > -- > With best wishes > Dmitry

2 months

Re: [RFC PATCH] misc: fgds: enable GPU-NVMe direct I/O via POSIX and io_uring

by Christian König

On 9/10/26 05:57, Li Wang wrote: ... >> AMD came up with something similar, but all those approaches are so fundamentally broken that we didn't even considered upstreaming it. >>> And you are using this as a "bypass" for the normal accel subsystem, >>> shouldn't this be part of that subsystem instead of a custom user/kernel >>> api like you are creating here? >> >> As far as I know there is a patch set under review and even already partially merged which enables exactly that functionality as general feature for DMA-buf which is vendor independent and should at least in theory work with all drivers. >> >> I'm really surprised that somebody is still working on the vendor specific stuff. > As you pointed out, every vendor has been inventing their own way and interfaces to support GDS, > introducing custom kernel modules and proprietary UAPI interfaces, with varying performance that > leaves developers heavily frustrated. Apologies for not making this clear enough in our commit > messages, which understandably caused some confusion. We merely borrowed the name "GDS" to describe > the functional purpose of fgds. > > In fact, we believe fgds offers four key advantages: > (1) GPU platform independence; > (2) POSIX/io_uring interface compatibility; > (3) Higher performance than GDS; > (4) Minimal kernel footprint and UAPI footprint > > Regarding (1), (2), and (3), please allow me to briefly explain the design mechanism of fgds: > fgds turns a GPU memory buffer into a POSIX/io_uring-compatible user-space virtual address via > three main steps: > > Step 1: Utilizing ZONE_DEVICE support, we remap the GPU memory exposed via PCIe BAR into struct pages > using devm_memremap_pages(); > > Step 2: Utilizing dma-buf support, the GPU memory buffer is exported as a dma-buf file descriptor (fd). > Using this fd as a bridge, we look up the corresponding DMA addresses for the GPU memory buffer inside > the kernel; > > Step 3: Through mmap, we insert the struct pages corresponding to the GPU memory buffer into the userspace > VMA, mapping their physical/DMA addresses directly. The virtual address returned by mmap can then be directly > passed into standard POSIX or io_uring interfaces. Well long story short what you do here is completely broken. Approaches like those have been suggested before and we added both documentation as well as code to prevent such hacks from working. Please see Pavel Begunkov patch set on the LKML which adds DMA-buf support to io_uring for how to do it correctly. Just google for "Add dmabuf read/write via io_uring". Regards, Christian.

2 months

Re: [PATCH v6 04/12] arm64/mm: Export set_direct_map_*_noflush() APIs

by Christoph Hellwig

On Fri, Sep 04, 2026 at 12:44:55PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > From: Thierry Reding <treding(a)nvidia.com> > > Drivers that use this may want to be built as a module, so export them. That's one of the worst commit log ever. No, we don't just export core symbols dealing with the kernel direct map because "Drivers that use this may want to be built as a module". For one exporting this at all needs a very good justification and not just hand waiving. But more importantly if we can't avoid exporting it, it needs to be exported at the tightest sensible scope. E.g. for a given module if it is so special, or a namespace if it's not that special. But in doubt we should have a proper core abstraction instead of opening up direct map manipulation to random modules.

2 months

Re: [RFC PATCH] misc: fgds: enable GPU-NVMe direct I/O via POSIX and io_uring

by Greg Kroah-Hartman

On Wed, Sep 09, 2026 at 06:42:03PM +0800, Li Wang wrote: > Hi Greg, > Thanks for the review! > > > > > That's not really needed in a changelog text, it could be in the 0/X > > patch :) > > > Sorry for the clutter. I will move most of them into the 0/X patch in v2. > > > Anyway, you didn't cc: the io_uring list, why? > > > `scripts/get_maintainer.pl` didn't output the io_uring mailing list, likely > because this patch doesn't directly touch the io_uring codebase itself. It only > enables remapping GPU memory buffers to CPU virtual addresses, which can then be > consumed via standard io_uring APIs. > > I've added io-uring(a)vger.kernel.org to CC for this reply and will keep it in v2. Great, as you are using that as the api, there might be some parts that will need to be reviewed by them. > > Nor why "fgds" is the name, that's going to be hard to remember, does it > > stand for something? > > > "FGDS" stands for Fast GPUDirect Storage. GPUDirect Storage (GDS) is NVIDIA's > technology enabling direct I/O between GPU memory and files on NVMe, > widely used in LLM workloads to bypass CPU overhead. That's nvidia's specific solution, but this works on other devices, right? Or just for that one platform? And you are using this as a "bypass" for the normal accel subsystem, shouldn't this be part of that subsystem instead of a custom user/kernel api like you are creating here? thanks, greg k-h

2 months

Re: [PATCH v6 08/12] dma-buf: heaps: Add debugfs support

by Christian König

Since AMDs mail servers blocked me from sending this out, here once more from my gmail account. Regards, Christian. On 9/4/26 15:00, Christian König wrote: > On 9/4/26 12:44, Thierry Reding wrote: >> From: Thierry Reding <treding(a)nvidia.com> >> >> Add a callback to struct dma_heap_ops that heap providers can implement >> to show information about the state of the heap in debugfs. A top-level >> directory named "dma_heap" is created in debugfs and individual files >> will be named after the heaps. >> >> Reviewed-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard(a)kernel.org> >> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding(a)nvidia.com> > > One minimal nit pick below, with that taken care of Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig(a)amd.com>. > >> --- >> Changes in v5: >> - fix failure handling during debugfs root directory creation >> - add more cleanup to the newly introduced dma_heap_exit() >> --- >> drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> include/linux/dma-heap.h | 2 ++ >> 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c >> index 8a6c2b6e0cc6..65c80dac6500 100644 >> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c >> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-heap.c >> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ >> */ >> >> #include <linux/cdev.h> >> +#include <linux/debugfs.h> >> #include <linux/device.h> >> #include <linux/dma-buf.h> >> #include <linux/dma-heap.h> >> @@ -225,6 +226,40 @@ const char *dma_heap_get_name(struct dma_heap *heap) >> } >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(dma_heap_get_name, "DMA_BUF_HEAP"); >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS >> +static int dma_heap_debug_show(struct seq_file *s, void *unused) >> +{ >> + struct dma_heap *heap = s->private; >> + int err = 0; >> + >> + if (heap->ops && heap->ops->show) >> + err = heap->ops->show(s, heap); >> + >> + return err; >> +} >> +DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE(dma_heap_debug); >> + >> +static struct dentry *dma_heap_debugfs_dir; >> + >> +static void dma_heap_init_debugfs(void) >> +{ >> + dma_heap_debugfs_dir = debugfs_create_dir("dma_heap", NULL); >> +} >> + >> +static void dma_heap_exit_debugfs(void) >> +{ >> + debugfs_remove_recursive(dma_heap_debugfs_dir); >> +} >> +#else >> +static void dma_heap_init_debugfs(void) >> +{ >> +} >> + >> +static void dma_heap_exit_debugfs(void) >> +{ >> +} >> +#endif >> + >> /** >> * dma_heap_add - adds a heap to dmabuf heaps >> * @exp_info: information needed to register this heap >> @@ -299,6 +334,13 @@ struct dma_heap *dma_heap_add(const struct dma_heap_export_info *exp_info) >> >> /* Add heap to the list */ >> list_add(&heap->list, &heap_list); >> + >> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS >> + if (heap->ops && heap->ops->show) >> + debugfs_create_file(heap->name, 0444, dma_heap_debugfs_dir, >> + heap, &dma_heap_debug_fops); >> +#endif >> + >> mutex_unlock(&heap_list_lock); >> >> return heap; >> @@ -335,6 +377,16 @@ static int dma_heap_init(void) >> } >> dma_heap_class->devnode = dma_heap_devnode; >> >> + dma_heap_init_debugfs(); >> + >> return 0; >> } >> subsys_initcall(dma_heap_init); >> + >> +static void __exit dma_heap_exit(void) >> +{ >> + dma_heap_exit_debugfs(); >> + class_destroy(dma_heap_class); >> + unregister_chrdev_region(dma_heap_devt, NUM_HEAP_MINORS); >> +} >> +__exitcall(dma_heap_exit); >> diff --git a/include/linux/dma-heap.h b/include/linux/dma-heap.h >> index 648328a64b27..1c9bed1f4dde 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/dma-heap.h >> +++ b/include/linux/dma-heap.h >> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ >> #include <linux/types.h> >> >> struct dma_heap; >> +struct seq_file; >> >> /** >> * struct dma_heap_ops - ops to operate on a given heap >> @@ -24,6 +25,7 @@ struct dma_heap_ops { >> unsigned long len, >> u32 fd_flags, >> u64 heap_flags); >> + int (*show)(struct seq_file *s, struct dma_heap *heap); > > I found it good coding practice for objects ops pointer tables to have the object the function works with as first parameter. > > Absolutely not a must have, but just looks a little bit more consistent. > > Regards, > Christian. > >> }; >> >> /** >> >

2 months

Re: [RFC PATCH] misc: fgds: enable GPU-NVMe direct I/O via POSIX and io_uring

by Greg Kroah-Hartman

On Tue, Sep 08, 2026 at 09:15:45PM +0800, Li Wang wrote: > From: Mengmeng Zhao <zhaomengmeng(a)kylinos.cn> > > Inspired by the paper published in SC'25 [1], we implemented a character > device named fgds that provides two ioctl interfaces: > `REG_BUFFER/UNREG_BUFFER`. It enables applications to perform direct I/O > between GPU memory and NVMe via POSIX and io_uring APIs. This is > particularly useful for LLM workloads, such as model loading, KV cache > offloading, and checkpointing. The fgds device corresponds one-to-one with > the PCIe GPU on the machine. The usage is straightforward: an application > simply opens the corresponding fgds device, calls ioctl on the returned fd > with REG_BUFFER, taking the target GPU memory buffer address (represented > as a dma-buf fd), and the buffer length as inputs, and then invokes mmap on > the fgds device fd, using the return value of ioctl as the input. The mmap > call returns a CPU virtual address (call it cpu_vaddr). Afterward, > cpu_vaddr can be passed directly to pread/pwrite, or > io_uring_prep_read/io_uring_prep_write to perform direct I/O between files > on NVMe and GPU memory. A minimal working example can be found in [2]. > The underlying mechanism is that, with the support of fgds device, > cpu_vaddr is made to point directly to the GPU memory buffer corresponding > to the dma-buf fd. This solution is loosely coupled with the GPU vendor's > driver; the GPU vendor only needs to support exporting the allocated GPU > memory buffer through the standard Linux kernel dma-buf framework, which > the vast majority of mainstream GPUs already support. This allows both > applications and the fgds device to work seamlessly with GPUs from > different vendors without any modifications. Furthermore, applications no > longer need to call vendor-specific proprietary APIs (such as NVIDIA's > cuFile API) or install vendor-specific kernel modules (such as NVIDIA's > nvidia-fs.ko) for different GPU vendors. We have tested fgds on GPU cards > from NVIDIA, AMD, and several other vendors, and it works well. > > Besides the benefits in ease of use and compatibility, another key > advantage of this solution is higher performance. [2] presents the > performance comparison results between fgds and NVIDIA GDS. Because fgds > eliminates the overhead of phony buffers incurred by NVIDIA GDS, it > achieves significantly higher performance. For example, for reads, fgds > outperforms GDS by 11% to 109%; for writes, fgds outperforms GDS by 10% > to 71%. > > To further accelerate the read and write operations of large files or > massive data volumes—which are very common in LLM scenarios—we have > implemented library functions `fgds_read` and `fgds_write`. Under the hood, > these interfaces split large data into chunks and submit them > asynchronously and in parallel via io_uring, thereby further boosting I/O > performance, with read performance improved by up to 115% and write > performance by up to 40%. In addition, we also provide the `fgds_register` > library interface to encapsulate the `open`, `ioctl' and `mmap` operations. > Readers who are interested can refer to [2]. > > In addition, we have added the LMCache backend, enabling vLLM to offload KV > cache via LMCache using fgds, which accelerates inference performance. We > also added PyTorch APIs, compatible with the PyTorch GDS API, to improve > the performance of reading and writing checkpoints during LLM training. > > We look forward to community feedback and are fully committed to iterating > on this series to work towards upstreaming. That's not really needed in a changelog text, it could be in the 0/X patch :) Anyway, you didn't cc: the io_uring list, why? Also, as a first cut, please see the sashiko comments on this patch: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260908131545.105987-1-liwang@kylinos.cn > > [1] https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3712285.3759862 > [2] https://github.com/Storage-and-OS-for-AI/fgds > > Signed-off-by: Mengmeng Zhao <zhaomengmeng(a)kylinos.cn> > Signed-off-by: Li Wang <liwang(a)kylinos.cn> > --- > drivers/misc/Kconfig | 9 + > drivers/misc/Makefile | 1 + > drivers/misc/fgds.c | 989 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/uapi/linux/fgds.h | 54 +++ > 4 files changed, 1053 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 drivers/misc/fgds.c > create mode 100644 include/uapi/linux/fgds.h > > diff --git a/drivers/misc/Kconfig b/drivers/misc/Kconfig > index 7364931dad3a..2f3a5a5fd0bf 100644 > --- a/drivers/misc/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/misc/Kconfig > @@ -568,6 +568,15 @@ config MCHP_LAN966X_PCI > - lan966x-miim (MDIO_MSCC_MIIM) > - lan966x-switch (LAN966X_SWITCH) > > +config FGDS > + tristate "GPU-NVMe direct I/O control driver" > + depends on PCI && DMA_SHARED_BUFFER && ZONE_DEVICE > + help > + Say Y here if you want to support GPU-NVME direct I/O > + via POSIX/io_uring interfaces. > + > + If unsure, say N. Module name is not listed here. Nor why "fgds" is the name, that's going to be hard to remember, does it stand for something? > + > source "drivers/misc/c2port/Kconfig" > source "drivers/misc/eeprom/Kconfig" > source "drivers/misc/cb710/Kconfig" > diff --git a/drivers/misc/Makefile b/drivers/misc/Makefile > index e8d8d5d88c0d..04985abe1678 100644 > --- a/drivers/misc/Makefile > +++ b/drivers/misc/Makefile > @@ -71,3 +71,4 @@ obj-y += keba/ > obj-y += amd-sbi/ > obj-$(CONFIG_MISC_RP1) += rp1/ > obj-$(CONFIG_INTEL_SSEI) += issei/ > +obj-$(CONFIG_FGDS) += fgds.o > diff --git a/drivers/misc/fgds.c b/drivers/misc/fgds.c > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..3aa4945f701b > --- /dev/null > +++ b/drivers/misc/fgds.c > @@ -0,0 +1,989 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > +/* > + * Fast GPU Direct Storage via dma-buf. > + * > + * Copyright (C) 2026 KylinSoft. Co., Ltd. All rights reserved. > + * > + * Maps GPU memory into user space to enable direct NVME-to-GPU DMA > + * pread/pwrite syscalls. BAR pages are remapped into ZONE_DEVICE via > + * devm_memremap_pages() and populated using dma-buf backing pages. > + */ > +#define pr_fmt(fmt) "fgds: " fmt You are a driver, always use dev_*() print functions, not pr_() functions, as you will loose the device information. For example: > +/* > + * BAR-based mapping requires device physical addresses. When using > + * IOMMU, DMA addresses are IOVAs, which cannot be mapped directly. > + */ > +static int fgds_check_gpu_iommu(struct pci_dev *pdev) > +{ > + struct iommu_domain *domain; > + > + domain = iommu_get_domain_for_dev(&pdev->dev); > + if (domain && domain->type != IOMMU_DOMAIN_IDENTITY) { > + pr_warn("%s: reject attaching a translating IOMMU domain (requires iommu=pt or off\n", > + dev_name(&pdev->dev)); Should be dev_warn(), right? But what can userspace do with that warning, did something just break? > + pr_info("loaded successfully: %u GPU(s) active\n", fgds_dev_count); When drivers work, they are quiet, please remove this, and the other pr_info() lines, as they seem to be left over from your debugging. thanks, greg k-h

2 months

Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] accel/qda: Qualcomm DSP Accelerator driver

by Bjorn Andersson

On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 06:37:00PM +0530, Ekansh Gupta wrote: > On 20-08-2026 20:17, Rob Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 11:15 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk(a)kernel.org> wrote: > >> > >> On 19/08/2026 17:48, Rob Clark wrote: > >>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 8:27 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk(a)kernel.org> wrote: > >>>> The rule of usptream development is that we do not accept duplicated > >>>> code, just because a vendor wants to write something new. This is > >>>> basically the concept applied all over the drivers tree, where we pushed > >>>> back against all sorts of duplications all over the vendors. > >>>> > >>>> What I miss in this thread is why would there be any exception here. We > >>>> do not grant exceptions from standard practices on "I want" reasons. > >>> > >>> I agree that we should not have duplicated drivers just for vendor > >>> lolz. But when it comes to adopting common frameworks and integrating > >>> better into the ecosystem, this doesn't seem like something we should > >>> actively discourage. I don't think this is a case of vendor lolz, but > >> > >> No one discourages it. Following standard Linux kernel practices and > >> requirements is not discouraging, do not twist the narrative here. > >> Again, it is standard upstream review telling that we do not duplicate > >> drivers. Ever, unless there is serious exception needed. > > > > I wasn't trying to twist the narrative, just trying to come up with a > > path forward that isn't "no" or "improve existing driver", since > > neither of those gets us towards a future using common frameworks. > > > >> I asked why there should be an exception granted? Is the reason for > >> exception following: > >> "We want to adopt common framework" > >> ? > > > > Possibly? But I don't think we want two drivers to be any sort of > > long term solution. (Ie. as long as venus/iris have co-exist.) > > > >> > >>> rather reacting to drm/accel emerging as the standard framework for > >>> this sort of driver. > >>> > >>> So how do we get from here to there? > >> > >> What is wrong with my proposal? > > > > Maybe I missed something, my understanding was your proposal was > > "Grow/replace/improve existing driver instead of coming with a > > duplicate".. grow or improve doesn't move us toward common > > frameworks. Maybe "replace" is a valid option. If there is something > > I missed, then I apologize. > > > > Options I can think of are: > > > > 1. Hardware cutoff.. new hw gets new driver, existing hw gets existing > > driver > > 2. Backwards compat chardev registered by new driver, providing existing > > UABI. I'm not 100% sure about the feasibility/drawbacks of this.. > > AFAIU the fastrpc folks where planning a backwards compat layer in > > userspace, so maybe it is possible. > > 3. exception? > > > > I'd like to know what the feasibility of #2 is, since at a high level > > that sounds like the best option. Possibly limit exposure of legacy > > UABI to existing hw so we don't get into a place of needing to extend > > the legacy UABI for new hw? > > > > But #1 sounds like a non-controversial place to start regardless. > > Possibly with #2 coming as followup and necessary step before eventual > > migration to new driver for existing hw? > > > > Even if we start with #2, how do we handle first-merge-window > > bugs/regressions without reverting addition of new driver and removal > > of old? It seems like we'd need a window of a couple release cycles > > where both drivers exist? > > > > Maybe others have other/better options in mind? > To all, I'm seeking on the approach I should follow to go ahead here. I > can work on implementing #1(as per Rob's list) with hw specific > compatible for v4 if it's acceptable. > I don't see any reason for you to define a "hw specific compatible", because as you have shown in this series (and as Rob point out), there's no difference in the "hardware". The only reason for your "hw specific compatible" is to make a software selection in Linux - and that's not what DeviceTree is for. As such, I don't see that you have a DeviceTree problem at all, because this is a Linux-internal problem. > #2(compat driver) is something that we are still exploring as we > couldn't find any standard way to achieve it. We might start a separate > discussion for that once we have few possible designs with us. > This is the actual problem! We have existing user space that depends on the ioctl interface exposed by the current misc driver. You must not break these. Hardware cutoff is not a viable solution, because that's just a declaration that we'll let the old platforms rotten - or alternatively you commit to maintain two drivers to the very same feature and quality level. So the only reasonable solution is #2; from there it's a valid question if you reach that point my stepwise migrating the current misc driver that solution, or if you present a new driver with the fully backwards compatible interface, alongside the new ABI. But this does bring to a question which the cover letter should explain - but doesn't: what problem does this patch series actually solve? Regards, Bjorn > Happy to take any other suggestion also.> > > BR, > > -R > >

2 months

Re: [PATCH v6 06/12] of: Export of_node_to_nid()

by Rob Herring

On Fri, Sep 04, 2026 at 12:44:57PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > From: Thierry Reding <treding(a)nvidia.com> > > Drivers buildable as a module may want to use this, so export it. We need a specific reason/driver. Otherwise, that's every API function. It doesn't look to me like the VPR driver ever actually uses the NID. > > Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding(a)nvidia.com> > --- > drivers/of/of_numa.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c > index 230d5f628c1b..da2e9bd1717c 100644 > --- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c > +++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c > @@ -171,6 +171,7 @@ int of_node_to_nid(struct device_node *device) > > return NUMA_NO_NODE; > } > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_node_to_nid); Assuming this is still needed, EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. Rob

2 months

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

Linaro-mm-sig