Re: [PATCH 0/2] arm64, cma, gicv3-its: Use CMA for allocation of large device tables

[Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>]

On 01/03/16 12:40, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 29.02.16 15:17:53, Laura Abbott wrote:
>> On 02/29/2016 05:30 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 29/02/16 12:25, Robert Richter wrote:
>>>> On 29.02.16 10:46:49, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>> On 25/02/16 11:02, Robert Richter wrote:
>>>>>> From: Robert Richter <rrichter@cavium.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This series implements the use of CMA for allocation of large device
>>>>>> tables for the arm64 gicv3 interrupt controller.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are 2 patches, the first is for early activation of cma, which
>>>>>> needs to be done before interrupt initialization to make it available
>>>>>> to the gicv3. The second implements the use of CMA to allocate
>>>>>> gicv3-its device tables.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This solves the problem where mem allocation is limited to 4MB. A
>>>>>> previous patch sent to the list to address this that instead increases
>>>>>> FORCE_MAX_ZONEORDER becomes obsolete.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you're looking at the problem the wrong way. Instead of going
>>>>> through CMA directly, I'd rather go through the normal DMA API
>>>>> (dma_alloc_coherent), which can itself try CMA (should it be enabled).
>>>>>
>>>>> That will give you all the benefit of the CMA allocation, and also make
>>>>> the driver more robust. I meant to do this for a while, and never found
>>>>> the time. Any chance you could have a look?
>>>>
>>>> I was considering this first, and in fact the backend used is the
>>>> same. The problem is that irq initialization is much more earlier than
>>>> standard device probing. The gic even does not have its own struct
>>>> device and is not initialized like devices are. This makes the whole
>>>> dma_alloc_coherent() approach not feasable, at least this would
>>>> require introducing and using a dev struct for the gic. But still this
>>>> migth not work as it could be too early during boot. I also think
>>>> there were reasons not implementing the gic as a device.
>>>>
>>>> I was following more the approach of iommu/mmu implementations which
>>>> use dma_alloc_from_contiguous() directly. I think this is more close
>>>> to the device tables for its.
>>>>
>>>> Code path of dma_alloc_coherent():
>>>>
>>>>  dma_alloc_coherent()
>>>>     v
>>>>  dma_alloc_attrs()             <---- Requires get_dma_ops(dev) != NULL
>>>>     v
>>>>  dma_alloc_from_coherent()
>>>>     v
>>>>  ...
>>>>
>>>> The difference it that dma_alloc_coherent() tries cma first and then
>>>> proceeds with ops->alloc() (which is __dma_alloc() for arm64) if
>>>> dma_alloc_from_coherent() fails. In my implementation I am directly
>>>> using dma_alloc_from_coherent() and only for large mem sizes.
>>>>
>>>> So both approaches uses finally the same allocation, but for gicv3-its
>>>> the generic dma framework is not used since the gic is not implemented
>>>> as a device.
>>>
>>> And that's what I propose we change.
>>>
>>> The core GIC itself indeed isn't a device, and I'm not proposing we make
>>> it a device (yet). But the ITS is only used much later in the game, and
>>> we could move the table allocation to a different time (when the actual
>>> domains are allocated, for example...). Then, we'd have a set of devices
>>> available, and the DMA API is our friend again.
>>>
>>> 	M.
>>>
>>
>> I did the first drop of CMA in the DMA APIs for arm64. When adding that,
>> it was decided to disallow dma_alloc calls without a valid device pointer
>> (c666e8d5cae7 "arm64: Warn on NULL device structure for dma APIs") so
>> if the GIC code wants to use dma_alloc it _must_ have a proper device.
>>
>> If the device shift still isn't feasible, a better approach might be
>> what powerpc did for kvm (arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_builtin.c). This
>> calls the cma_alloc functions directly and skips trying to work around
>> the DMA layer.
>>
>> With either option, I don't think the early initialization approach
>> proposed is great. If we want CMA early, it's probably be just to
>> explicitly initialize it early rather than trying to do it from
>> two places. Something like:
> 
> I wasn't sure whether this works for all archs if called directly in
> mm_init(). If so, ok your proposed change would be better, though a
> stub for !CONFIG_CMA needs to be added. Any comment on the change
> below as a replacement for patch #1?
> 
> On the other side, if we use device enablement for its, then early cma
> enablement is not needed anymore. Will check how that could work.

I'm planning to have a look at that next week. This would solve a number
of other issues (like the custom "needs flushing" flags we have so far),
and Will has been pestering me about it for quite a while now.

The only worry I have is that we end-up in a dependency hell with PCI
being probed too early. I really wish we had proper device dependencies
sorted... But we do need to try that route before starting to hack
things like CMA.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...