Re: [PATCH 5/5] vfio-pci: Best-effort huge pfnmaps with !MAP_FIXED mappings

[Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 03:40:41PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Even with this new version you have to decide to return PUD_SIZE or
> bar_size in pci and your same reasoning that PUD_SIZE make sense
> applies (though I would probably return bar_size and just let the core
> code cap it to PUD_SIZE)

Yes.

Today I went back to look at this, I was trying to introduce this for
file_operations:

	int (*get_mapping_order)(struct file *, unsigned long, size_t);

It looks almost good, except that it so far has no way to return the
physical address for further calculation on the alignment.

For THP, VA is always calculated against pgoff not physical address on the
alignment.  I think it's OK for THP, because every 2M THP folio will be
naturally 2M aligned on the physical address, so it fits when e.g. pgoff=0
in the calculation of thp_get_unmapped_area_vmflags().

Logically it should even also work for vfio-pci, as long as VFIO keeps
using the lower 40 bits of the device_fd to represent the bar offset,
meanwhile it'll also require PCIe spec asking the PCI bars to be mapped
aligned with bar sizes.

But from an API POV, get_mapping_order() logically should return something
for further calculation of the alignment to get the VA.  pgoff here may not
always be the right thing to use to align to the VA: after all, pgtable
mapping is about VA -> PA, the only reasonable and reliable way is to align
VA to the PA to be mappped, and as an API we shouldn't assume pgoff is
always aligned to PA address space.

Any thoughts?

-- 
Peter Xu