From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, URIBL_DBL_ABUSE_MALW,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39844C35249 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 07:47:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13DEF217BA for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 07:47:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725497AbgBEHrW (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Feb 2020 02:47:22 -0500 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:36001 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725468AbgBEHrW (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Feb 2020 02:47:22 -0500 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id D9A8B68CEC; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 08:47:19 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 08:47:19 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Kishon Vijay Abraham I Cc: Christoph Hellwig , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: pci-usb/pci-sata broken with LPAE config after "reduce use of block bounce buffers" Message-ID: <20200205074719.GA22701@lst.de> References: <120f7c3e-363d-deb0-a347-782ac869ee0d@ti.com> <20200130075833.GC30735@lst.de> <4a41bd0d-6491-3822-172a-fbca8a6abba5@ti.com> <20200130164235.GA6705@lst.de> <20200203142155.GA16388@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 10:45:24AM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > > Ok, this mostly like means we allocate a swiotlb buffer that isn't > > actually addressable. To verify that can you post the output with the > > first attached patch? If it shows the overflow message added there, > > please try if the second patch fixes it. > > I'm seeing some sort of busy loop after applying your 1st patch. I sent > a SysRq to see where it is stuck And that shows up just with the patch? Really strange as it doesn't change any blockig points. What also is strange is that I don't see any of the warnings that should be there. FYI, the slightly updated version of the patch that went through my testing it here: git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git swiotlb-debug Gitweb: http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git/shortlog/refs/heads/swiotlb-debug this also includes what was the second patch in the previous mail. Can you try that branch?