From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1169017AbcKALrH (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:47:07 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:50346 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1168996AbcKALrD (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:47:03 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] swiotlb: Add swiotlb=nobounce debug option To: Geert Uytterhoeven References: <1477928704-10611-1-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be> <1477928704-10611-3-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be> <86c57a18-cb28-8aee-9edb-96da73d4f829@arm.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Jonathan Corbet , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , Magnus Damm , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linux-Renesas , iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org From: Robin Murphy Message-ID: <967ca71a-61c5-5585-16e7-990409088fa6@arm.com> Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:46:59 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 31/10/16 18:20, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Robin, > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Robin Murphy wrote: >> On 31/10/16 15:45, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> On architectures like arm64, swiotlb is tied intimately to the core >>> architecture DMA support. In addition, ZONE_DMA cannot be disabled. >> >> To be fair, that only takes a single-character change in >> arch/arm64/Kconfig - in fact, I'm amused to see my stupid patch to fix >> the build if you do just that (86a5906e4d1d) has just had its birthday ;) > > Unfortunately it's not that simple. Using a small patch (based on Mark Salter's > "arm64: make CONFIG_ZONE_DMA user settable"), it appears to work. However: > - With CONFIG_ZONE_DMA=n and memory present over 4G, swiotlb_init() is > not called. > This will lead to a NULL pointer dereference later, when > dma_map_single() calls into an unitialized SWIOTLB subsystem through > swiotlb_tbl_map_single(). > - With CONFIG_ZONE_DMA=n and no memory present over 4G, swiotlb_init() > is also not called, but RAVB works fine. > Disabling CONFIG_SWIOTLB is non-trivial, as the arm64 DMA core always > uses swiotlb_dma_ops, and its operations depend a lot on SWIOTLB > helpers. > > So that's why I went for this option. OK, that's new to me - I guess this behaviour was introduced by b67a8b29df7e ("arm64: mm: only initialize swiotlb when necessary"). Regardless of this patch, that check probably wants fixing to still do the appropriate thing if arm64_dma_phys_limit is above 4GB (or just depend on ZONE_DMA). Disabling ZONE_DMA for development doesn't seem that unreasonable a thing to do, especially if there are ready-made patches floating around already, so having it crash the kernel in ways it didn't before isn't ideal. >>> To aid debugging and catch devices not supporting DMA to memory outside >>> the 32-bit address space, add a kernel command line option >>> "swiotlb=nobounce", which disables the use of bounce buffers. >>> If specified, trying to map memory that cannot be used with DMA will >>> fail, and a warning will be printed (rate-limited). >> >> This rationale seems questionable - how useful is non-deterministic >> behaviour for debugging really? What you end up with is DMA sometimes >> working or sometimes not depending on whether allocations happen to >> naturally fall below 4GB or not. In my experience, that in itself can be >> a pain in the arse to debug. > > It immediately triggered for me, though: > > rcar-dmac e7300000.dma-controller: Cannot do DMA to address > 0x000000067a9b7000 > ravb e6800000.ethernet: Cannot do DMA to address 0x000000067aa07780 > >> Most of the things you might then do to make things more deterministic >> again (like making the default DMA mask tiny or hacking out all the >> system's 32-bit addressable RAM) are also generally sufficient to make >> DMA fail earlier and make this option moot anyway. What's the specific >> use case motivating this? > > My use case is finding which drivers and DMA engines do not support 64-bit > memory. There's more info in my series "[PATCH/RFC 0/5] arm64: r8a7796: 64-bit > Memory and Ethernet Prototype" > (https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org/msg08393.html) Thanks for the context. I've done very similar things in the past, and my first instinct would be to change the default DMA mask in of_dma_configure() to something which can't reach RAM (e.g. <30 bits), then instrument dma_set_mask() to catch cleverer drivers. That's a straightforward way to get 100% coverage - the problem with simply disabling bounce buffering is that whilst statistically it almost certainly will catch >95% of cases, there will always be some that it won't; if some driver only ever does a single dma_alloc_coherent() early enough that allocations are still fairly deterministic, and always happens to get a 32-bit address on that platform, it's likely to slip through the net. I'm not against the idea of SWIOTLB growing a runtime-disable option, I'm just not sure what situation it's actually the best solution for. Robin. > > Gr{oetje,eeting}s, > > Geert > > -- > Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org > > In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But > when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. > -- Linus Torvalds >