Re: DPAA2 triggers, [PATCH] dma debug: report -EEXIST errors in add_dma_entry

[Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com>]

On Fri, 1 Oct 2021 14:52:56 +0200
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:37:33 +0200
> Karsten Graul <kgraul@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 14/09/2021 17:45, Ioana Ciornei wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 10:33:26PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> > >> +DPAA2, netdev maintainers
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> On 5/18/21 7:54 AM, Hamza Mahfooz wrote:
> > >>> Since, overlapping mappings are not supported by the DMA API we should
> > >>> report an error if active_cacheline_insert returns -EEXIST.
> > >>
> > >> It seems this patch found a victim. I was trying to run iperf3 on a
> > >> honeycomb (5.14.0, fedora 35) and the console is blasting this error message
> > >> at 100% cpu. So, I changed it to a WARN_ONCE() to get the call trace, which
> > >> is attached below.
> > >>
> > > 
> > > These frags are allocated by the stack, transformed into a scatterlist
> > > by skb_to_sgvec and then DMA mapped with dma_map_sg. It was not the
> > > dpaa2-eth's decision to use two fragments from the same page (that will
> > > also end un in the same cacheline) in two different in-flight skbs.
> > > 
> > > Is this behavior normal?
> > > 
> > 
> > We see the same problem here and it started with 5.15-rc2 in our nightly CI runs.
> > The CI has panic_on_warn enabled so we see the panic every day now.
> 
> Adding a WARN for a case that be detected false-positive seems not
> acceptable, exactly for this reason (kernel panic on unaffected
> systems).
> 
> So I guess it boils down to the question if the behavior that Ioana
> described is legit behavior, on a system that is dma coherent. We
> are apparently hitting the same scenario, although it could not yet be
> reproduced with debug printks for some reason.
> 
> If the answer is yes, than please remove at lease the WARN, so that
> it will not make systems crash that behave valid, and have
> panic_on_warn set. Even a normal printk feels wrong to me in that
> case, it really sounds rather like you want to fix / better refine
> the overlap check, if you want to report anything here.

Dan, Christoph, any opinion?

So far it all looks a lot like a false positive, so could you please
see that those patches get reverted? I do wonder a bit why this is
not an issue for others, we surely cannot be the only ones running
CI with panic_on_warn.

We would need to disable DEBUG_DMA if this WARN stays in, which
would be a shame. Of course, in theory, this might also indicate
some real bug, but there really is no sign of that so far.

Having multiple sg elements in the same page (or cacheline) is
valid, correct? And this is also not a decision of the driver
IIUC, so if it was bug, it should be addressed in common code,
correct?

> 
> BTW, there is already a WARN in the add_dma_entry() path, related
> to cachlline overlap and -EEXIST:
> 
> add_dma_entry() -> active_cacheline_insert() -> -EEXIST ->
> active_cacheline_inc_overlap()
> 
> That will only trigger when "overlap > ACTIVE_CACHELINE_MAX_OVERLAP".
> Not familiar with that code, but it seems that there are now two
> warnings for more or less the same, and the new warning is much more
> prone to false-positives.
> 
> How do these 2 warnings relate, are they both really necessary?
> I think the new warning was only introduced because of some old
> TODO comment in add_dma_entry(), see commit 2b4bbc6231d78
> ("dma-debug: report -EEXIST errors in add_dma_entry").
> 
> That comment was initially added by Dan long time ago, and he
> added several fix-ups for overlap detection after that, including
> the "overlap > ACTIVE_CACHELINE_MAX_OVERLAP" stuff in
> active_cacheline_inc_overlap(). So could it be that the TODO
> comment was simply not valid any more, and better be removed
> instead of adding new / double warnings, that also generate
> false-positives and kernel crashes?