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 <[email protected]> > --- > 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 <linux/scatterlist.h> > #include <linux/slab.h> > #include <linux/vmalloc.h> > +#include <linux/cgroup_dmem.h> > > #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 <[email protected]>
Maxime
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
