Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] dma-mapping: Support batch mode for dma_direct_sync_sg_for_*

[Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx>]

On 2026-01-06 6:41 pm, Barry Song wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 3:50 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 28, 2025 at 09:52:05AM +1300, Barry Song wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 28, 2025 at 9:09 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Dec 27, 2025 at 11:52:45AM +1300, Barry Song wrote:
> > > > > From: Barry Song <baohua@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > Instead of performing a flush per SG entry, issue all cache
> > > > > operations first and then flush once. This ultimately benefits
> > > > > __dma_sync_sg_for_cpu() and __dma_sync_sg_for_device().
> > > > >
> > > > > Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Ada Couprie Diaz <ada.coupriediaz@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Tangquan Zheng <zhengtangquan@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <baohua@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >   kernel/dma/direct.c | 14 +++++++-------
> > > > >   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > > <...>
> > > >
> > > > > -             if (!dev_is_dma_coherent(dev)) {
> > > > > +             if (!dev_is_dma_coherent(dev))
> > > > >                        arch_sync_dma_for_device(paddr, sg->length,
> > > > >                                        dir);
> > > > > -                     arch_sync_dma_flush();
> > > > > -             }
> > > > >        }
> > > > > +     if (!dev_is_dma_coherent(dev))
> > > > > +             arch_sync_dma_flush();
> > > > This patch should be squashed into the previous one. You introduced
> > > > arch_sync_dma_flush() there, and now you are placing it elsewhere.
> > > Hi Leon,
> > >
> > > The previous patch replaces all arch_sync_dma_for_* calls with
> > > arch_sync_dma_for_* plus arch_sync_dma_flush(), without any
> > > functional change. The subsequent patches then implement the
> > > actual batching. I feel this is a better approach for reviewing
> > > each change independently. Otherwise, the previous patch would
> > > be too large.
> > Don't worry about it. Your patches are small enough.
> My hardware does not require a bounce buffer, but I am concerned that
> this patch may be incorrect for systems that do require one.
>
> Now it is:
>
> void dma_direct_sync_sg_for_cpu(struct device *dev,
>                  struct scatterlist *sgl, int nents, enum dma_data_direction 
> dir)
> {
>          struct scatterlist *sg;
>          int i;
>
>          for_each_sg(sgl, sg, nents, i) {
>                  phys_addr_t paddr = dma_to_phys(dev, sg_dma_address(sg));
>
>                  if (!dev_is_dma_coherent(dev))
>                          arch_sync_dma_for_cpu(paddr, sg->length, dir);
>
>                  swiotlb_sync_single_for_cpu(dev, paddr, sg->length, dir);
>
>                  if (dir == DMA_FROM_DEVICE)
>                          arch_dma_mark_clean(paddr, sg->length);
>          }
>
>          if (!dev_is_dma_coherent(dev)) {
>                  arch_sync_dma_flush();
>                  arch_sync_dma_for_cpu_all();
>          }
> }
>
> Should we call swiotlb_sync_single_for_cpu() and
> arch_dma_mark_clean() after the flush to ensure the CPU sees the
> latest data and that the memcpy is correct? I mean:
Yes, this and the equivalents in the later patches are broken for all 
the sync_for_cpu and unmap paths which may end up bouncing (beware some 
of them get a bit fiddly) - any cache maintenance *must* be completed 
before calling SWIOTLB. As for mark_clean, IIRC that was an IA-64 thing, 
and appears to be entirely dead now.
Thanks,
Robin.

> void dma_direct_sync_sg_for_cpu(struct device *dev,
>                  struct scatterlist *sgl, int nents, enum dma_data_direction 
> dir)
> {
>          struct scatterlist *sg;
>          int i;
>
>          for_each_sg(sgl, sg, nents, i) {
>                  phys_addr_t paddr = dma_to_phys(dev, sg_dma_address(sg));
>
>                  if (!dev_is_dma_coherent(dev))
>                          arch_sync_dma_for_cpu(paddr, sg->length, dir);
>          }
>
>          if (!dev_is_dma_coherent(dev)) {
>                  arch_sync_dma_flush();
>                  arch_sync_dma_for_cpu_all();
>          }
>
>          for_each_sg(sgl, sg, nents, i) {
>                  phys_addr_t paddr = dma_to_phys(dev, sg_dma_address(sg));
>
>                  swiotlb_sync_single_for_cpu(dev, paddr, sg->length, dir);
>
>                  if (dir == DMA_FROM_DEVICE)
>                          arch_dma_mark_clean(paddr, sg->length);
>          }
> }
>
> Could this be the same issue for dma_direct_unmap_sg()?
>
> Another option is to not support batched synchronization for the bounce
> buffer case, since it is rare. In that case, it could be:
>
> diff --git a/kernel/dma/direct.c b/kernel/dma/direct.c
> index 550a1a13148d..a4840f7e8722 100644
> --- a/kernel/dma/direct.c
> +++ b/kernel/dma/direct.c
> @@ -423,8 +423,11 @@ void dma_direct_sync_sg_for_cpu(struct device *dev,
>          for_each_sg(sgl, sg, nents, i) {
>                  phys_addr_t paddr = dma_to_phys(dev, sg_dma_address(sg));
>
> -               if (!dev_is_dma_coherent(dev))
> +               if (!dev_is_dma_coherent(dev)) {
>                          arch_sync_dma_for_cpu(paddr, sg->length, dir);
> +                       if (unlikely(dev->dma_io_tlb_mem))
> +                               arch_sync_dma_flush();
> +               }
>
>                  swiotlb_sync_single_for_cpu(dev, paddr, sg->length, dir);
>
> What’s your view on this, Leon?
>
> Thanks
> Barry