On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 03:06:18PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
On 11/19/25 14:35, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 10:18:08AM +0100, Christian König wrote:
+As this is not well-defined or well-supported in real HW the kernel defaults to +blocking such routing. There is an allow list to allow detecting known-good HW, +in which case P2P between any two PCIe devices will be permitted.
That section sounds not correct to me.
It is correct in that it describes what the kernel does right now.
See calc_map_type_and_dist(), host_bridge_whitelist(), cpu_supports_p2pdma().
Well I'm the one who originally suggested that whitelist and the description still doesn't sound correct to me.
I would write something like "The PCIe specification doesn't define the forwarding of transactions between hierarchy domains...."
Ok
The previous text was actually much better than this summary since now it leaves out the important information where all of this is comes from.
Well, IMHO, it doesn't "come from" anywhere, this is all implementation specific behaviors..
ARM SOCs are frequently not supporting even on server CPUs.
IIRC ARM actually has a validation program for this, but I've forgotten the name of it again.
I suspect you mean SBSA, and I know at least one new SBSA approved chip that doesn't have working P2P through the host bridge.. :(
Randy should know the name of it and I think mentioning the status of the vendors here would be a good idea.
I think refer to the kernel code is best for what is currently permitted..
The documentation makes it sound like DMA-buf is limited to not using struct pages and direct I/O, but that is not true.
Okay, I see what you mean, the intention was to be very strong and say if you are not using struct pages then you must using DMABUF or something like it to control lifetime. Not to say that was the only way how DMABUF can be used.
Leon let's try to clarify that a bit more
Jason