Hi, On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 12:14:12PM -0500, Eric Chanudet wrote: > The cma dma-buf heaps let userspace allocate buffers in CMA regions > without enforcing limits. Since each cma region registers in dmem, > charge against it when allocating a buffer in a cma heap. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Chanudet > --- > drivers/dma-buf/heaps/cma_heap.c | 15 ++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/cma_heap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/cma_heap.c > index 49cc45fb42dd7200c3c14384bcfdbe85323454b1..bbd4f9495808da19256d97bd6a4dca3e1b0a30a0 100644 > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/cma_heap.c > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/heaps/cma_heap.c > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ > #include > #include > #include > +#include > > #define DEFAULT_CMA_NAME "default_cma_region" > > @@ -58,6 +59,7 @@ struct cma_heap_buffer { > pgoff_t pagecount; > int vmap_cnt; > void *vaddr; > + struct dmem_cgroup_pool_state *pool; I guess we should add an #if IS_ENABLED #endif guard for dmem? > }; > > struct dma_heap_attachment { > @@ -276,6 +278,7 @@ static void cma_heap_dma_buf_release(struct dma_buf *dmabuf) > kfree(buffer->pages); > /* release memory */ > cma_release(cma_heap->cma, buffer->cma_pages, buffer->pagecount); > + dmem_cgroup_uncharge(buffer->pool, buffer->len); > kfree(buffer); > } > > @@ -319,9 +322,17 @@ static struct dma_buf *cma_heap_allocate(struct dma_heap *heap, > if (align > CONFIG_CMA_ALIGNMENT) > align = CONFIG_CMA_ALIGNMENT; > > + if (mem_accounting) { > + ret = dmem_cgroup_try_charge( > + cma_get_dmem_cgroup_region(cma_heap->cma), size, > + &buffer->pool, NULL); This alone doesn't call for a new version, but adhering to the kernel coding style would look like this: + ret = dmem_cgroup_try_charge(cma_get_dmem_cgroup_region(cma_heap->cma), + size, &buffer->pool, NULL); It looks good to me otherwise, Acked-by: Maxime Ripard Maxime