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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham 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 0EFEDC43381 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 23:25:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F8E206C0 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 23:25:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="aBzpyi3n" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726998AbfCRXZp (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Mar 2019 19:25:45 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f68.google.com ([209.85.221.68]:36394 "EHLO mail-wr1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726303AbfCRXZp (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Mar 2019 19:25:45 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f68.google.com with SMTP id y13so14461694wrd.3; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 16:25:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:openpgp:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XeV42sGyXAbTiMtSmcyCgva4FL7HlR2UbGItI2TYVPc=; b=aBzpyi3n6Nqdh+qaNlxXWt8LmXG5CPmlUK9g1N1rNeCY79AtvmES7NM9hm23ckreyi 0jHUHTL1fI9PgQWAKppP0JFKT25gN44U1872U+wtIYt92AiWs6lHh8+AmRmZAstA28AT IMFYwlX0+9lAGxG+faqRWw8yL1pvhGClUlzABdmMKZgWLYmIaODwrWunnhzFAelOYH+w c5USFLwrgdY589HKAPv64BN3aCjdfgwzSa4OSBv/anjEmjE/6sOh4FC4O0LxgsnNzh/J U1mtt/nya/HDb5JXbpopbvY8L2zoEEG61SpNog7hE3wUs0BsrZAp6tswWuTnYBjVsnHk urxQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:openpgp:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=XeV42sGyXAbTiMtSmcyCgva4FL7HlR2UbGItI2TYVPc=; b=g/XOEDxOoNOe2iR8NT+H/g/7XXmfIzKLso/e8HduAbwQDmiPzS/+e7Mlk4D9gjvQyJ LZLB2YeeZVttsewR0u3tpDa+IMQGGmbS0Z1JmEqSDLP9aqcBhsOPQVGA4MWeQ/8lkR8M /EXgUaR7hPBhAvuchwWCxksfWj8/hdn8LmLoKZ8eLpcgLap5bOr2rPR8HKqwAsFg+Sgo xyQX5EjDNPHreL1eHkdFrq/zHq0eq3oiD8yx2tDTjOEE0ONSRjRV9xtPQq+5W/enffNx kg8AOQEuB3rAuitoTl1uW6g1nkQVQcPQeiYa6579+U+aCrRPdWDOqLAeS726l0eKzx1G VIDA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV0Xg/XfuwjB3WcwrEkzPGuMKDnwV5zlHFP36DsOOS3Pju6A6t4 398zjPKkIlhPtCU6d0qYRZ/cfXxA X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxdDSbvJ/GSFDJr90LL6WIJ+XhTC6xD0FsMX+i3u5Th4azeWZ6xXgiRkzbSG1oAF9ot5dhL4Q== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:428c:: with SMTP id k12mr5763222wrq.279.1552951542337; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 16:25:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.43.97] (cst-prg-67-183.cust.vodafone.cz. [46.135.67.183]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l4sm3097425wrf.35.2019.03.18.16.25.39 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Mar 2019 16:25:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] ata: ahci: Respect bus DMA constraints To: Robin Murphy , Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, Marek Vasut , Geert Uytterhoeven , Jens Axboe , Jens Axboe , Keith Busch , Sagi Grimberg , Wolfram Sang , Linux-Renesas References: <20190307000440.8708-1-marek.vasut@gmail.com> <7c051bbd-7835-9cab-30b2-0acde1364781@arm.com> <356f3ee8-407f-f865-e5cc-333695d4f857@gmail.com> <79e44e90-b16a-5315-e02f-101a2ebbb6a0@arm.com> <20190308071810.GA11959@lst.de> <20190313183056.GB4926@lst.de> <3b665597-a616-70fc-8cd0-dfde236fe669@gmail.com> <6eb8eb87-f4c0-a1be-7585-cdc10f620899@gmail.com> <5fdb1775-5e44-ad25-62c9-52c247660062@arm.com> From: Marek Vasut Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 00:25:38 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5fdb1775-5e44-ad25-62c9-52c247660062@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-renesas-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org On 3/18/19 2:14 PM, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 17/03/2019 23:36, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 3/17/19 11:29 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> Hi Marek, >> >> Hi, >> >>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 12:04 AM Marek Vasut >>> wrote: >>>> On 3/16/19 10:25 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>> On 3/13/19 7:30 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, Mar 09, 2019 at 12:23:15AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/8/19 8:18 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 12:14:06PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Right, but whoever *interprets* the device masks after the >>>>>>>>>> driver has >>>>>>>>>> overridden them should be taking the (smaller) bus mask into >>>>>>>>>> account as >>>>>>>>>> well, so the question is where is *that* not being done >>>>>>>>>> correctly? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you have a hint where I should look for that ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If this a 32-bit ARM platform it might the complete lack of support >>>>>>>> for bus_dma_mask in arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's an ARM 64bit platform, just the PCIe controller is limited >>>>>>> to 32bit >>>>>>> address range, so the devices on the PCIe bus cannot read the host's >>>>>>> DRAM above the 32bit limit. >>>>>> >>>>>> arm64 should take the mask into account both for the swiotlb and >>>>>> iommu case.  What are the exact symptoms you see? >>>>> >>>>> With the nvme, the device is recognized, but cannot be used. >>>>> It boils down to PCI BAR access being possible, since that's all below >>>>> the 32bit boundary, but when the device tries to do any sort of DMA, >>>>> that transfer returns nonsense data. >>>>> >>>>> But when I call dma_set_mask_and_coherent(dev->dev, >>>>> DMA_BIT_MASK(32) in >>>>> the affected driver (thus far I tried this nvme, xhci-pci and ahci-pci >>>>> drivers), it all starts to work fine. >>>>> >>>>> Could it be that the driver overwrites the (coherent_)dma_mask and >>>>> that's why the swiotlb/iommu code cannot take this into account ? >>>>> >>>>>> Does it involve >>>>>> swiotlb not kicking in, or iommu issues? >>>>> >>>>> How can I check ? I added printks into arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c and >>>>> drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c , but I suspect I need to look elsewhere. >>>> >>>> Digging further ... >>>> >>>> drivers/nvme/host/pci.c nvme_map_data() calls dma_map_sg_attrs() and >>>> the >>>> resulting sglist contains entry with >32bit PA. This is because >>>> dma_map_sg_attrs() calls dma_direct_map_sg(), which in turn calls >>>> dma_direct_map_sg(), then dma_direct_map_page() and that's where it >>>> goes >>>> weird. >>>> >>>> dma_direct_map_page() does a dma_direct_possible() check before >>>> triggering swiotlb_map(). The check succeeds, so the later isn't >>>> executed. >>>> >>>> dma_direct_possible() calls dma_capable() with dev->dma_mask = >>>> DMA_BIT_MASK(64) and dev->dma_bus_mask = 0, so >>>> min_not_zero(*dev->dma_mask, dev->bus_dma_mask) returns >>>> DMA_BIT_MASK(64). >>>> >>>> Surely enough, if I hack dma_direct_possible() to return 0, >>>> swiotlb_map() kicks in and the nvme driver starts working fine. >>>> >>>> I presume the question here is, why is dev->bus_dma_mask = 0 ? >>> >>> Because that's the default, and almost no code overrides that? >> >> But shouldn't drivers/of/device.c set that for the PCIe controller ? > > Urgh, I really should have spotted the significance of "NVMe", but > somehow it failed to click :( Good thing it did now :-) > Of course the existing code works fine for everything *except* PCI > devices on DT-based systems... That's because of_dma_get_range() has > never been made to work correctly with the trick we play of passing the > host bridge of_node through of_dma_configure(). I've got at least 2 or 3 > half-finished attempts at improving that, but they keep getting > sidetracked into trying to clean up the various new of_dma_configure() > hacks I find in drivers and/or falling down the rabbit-hole of starting > to redesign the whole dma_pfn_offset machinery entirely. Let me dig one > up and try to constrain it to solve just this most common "one single > limited range" condition for the sake of making actual progress... That'd be nice, thank you. I'm happy to test it on various devices here. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: marek.vasut@gmail.com (Marek Vasut) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 00:25:38 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] ata: ahci: Respect bus DMA constraints In-Reply-To: <5fdb1775-5e44-ad25-62c9-52c247660062@arm.com> References: <20190307000440.8708-1-marek.vasut@gmail.com> <7c051bbd-7835-9cab-30b2-0acde1364781@arm.com> <356f3ee8-407f-f865-e5cc-333695d4f857@gmail.com> <79e44e90-b16a-5315-e02f-101a2ebbb6a0@arm.com> <20190308071810.GA11959@lst.de> <20190313183056.GB4926@lst.de> <3b665597-a616-70fc-8cd0-dfde236fe669@gmail.com> <6eb8eb87-f4c0-a1be-7585-cdc10f620899@gmail.com> <5fdb1775-5e44-ad25-62c9-52c247660062@arm.com> Message-ID: On 3/18/19 2:14 PM, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 17/03/2019 23:36, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 3/17/19 11:29 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> Hi Marek, >> >> Hi, >> >>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 12:04 AM Marek Vasut >>> wrote: >>>> On 3/16/19 10:25 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>> On 3/13/19 7:30 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, Mar 09, 2019@12:23:15AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/8/19 8:18 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 07, 2019@12:14:06PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Right, but whoever *interprets* the device masks after the >>>>>>>>>> driver has >>>>>>>>>> overridden them should be taking the (smaller) bus mask into >>>>>>>>>> account as >>>>>>>>>> well, so the question is where is *that* not being done >>>>>>>>>> correctly? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you have a hint where I should look for that ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If this a 32-bit ARM platform it might the complete lack of support >>>>>>>> for bus_dma_mask in arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's an ARM 64bit platform, just the PCIe controller is limited >>>>>>> to 32bit >>>>>>> address range, so the devices on the PCIe bus cannot read the host's >>>>>>> DRAM above the 32bit limit. >>>>>> >>>>>> arm64 should take the mask into account both for the swiotlb and >>>>>> iommu case.? What are the exact symptoms you see? >>>>> >>>>> With the nvme, the device is recognized, but cannot be used. >>>>> It boils down to PCI BAR access being possible, since that's all below >>>>> the 32bit boundary, but when the device tries to do any sort of DMA, >>>>> that transfer returns nonsense data. >>>>> >>>>> But when I call dma_set_mask_and_coherent(dev->dev, >>>>> DMA_BIT_MASK(32) in >>>>> the affected driver (thus far I tried this nvme, xhci-pci and ahci-pci >>>>> drivers), it all starts to work fine. >>>>> >>>>> Could it be that the driver overwrites the (coherent_)dma_mask and >>>>> that's why the swiotlb/iommu code cannot take this into account ? >>>>> >>>>>> Does it involve >>>>>> swiotlb not kicking in, or iommu issues? >>>>> >>>>> How can I check ? I added printks into arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c and >>>>> drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c , but I suspect I need to look elsewhere. >>>> >>>> Digging further ... >>>> >>>> drivers/nvme/host/pci.c nvme_map_data() calls dma_map_sg_attrs() and >>>> the >>>> resulting sglist contains entry with >32bit PA. This is because >>>> dma_map_sg_attrs() calls dma_direct_map_sg(), which in turn calls >>>> dma_direct_map_sg(), then dma_direct_map_page() and that's where it >>>> goes >>>> weird. >>>> >>>> dma_direct_map_page() does a dma_direct_possible() check before >>>> triggering swiotlb_map(). The check succeeds, so the later isn't >>>> executed. >>>> >>>> dma_direct_possible() calls dma_capable() with dev->dma_mask = >>>> DMA_BIT_MASK(64) and dev->dma_bus_mask = 0, so >>>> min_not_zero(*dev->dma_mask, dev->bus_dma_mask) returns >>>> DMA_BIT_MASK(64). >>>> >>>> Surely enough, if I hack dma_direct_possible() to return 0, >>>> swiotlb_map() kicks in and the nvme driver starts working fine. >>>> >>>> I presume the question here is, why is dev->bus_dma_mask = 0 ? >>> >>> Because that's the default, and almost no code overrides that? >> >> But shouldn't drivers/of/device.c set that for the PCIe controller ? > > Urgh, I really should have spotted the significance of "NVMe", but > somehow it failed to click :( Good thing it did now :-) > Of course the existing code works fine for everything *except* PCI > devices on DT-based systems... That's because of_dma_get_range() has > never been made to work correctly with the trick we play of passing the > host bridge of_node through of_dma_configure(). I've got at least 2 or 3 > half-finished attempts at improving that, but they keep getting > sidetracked into trying to clean up the various new of_dma_configure() > hacks I find in drivers and/or falling down the rabbit-hole of starting > to redesign the whole dma_pfn_offset machinery entirely. Let me dig one > up and try to constrain it to solve just this most common "one single > limited range" condition for the sake of making actual progress... That'd be nice, thank you. I'm happy to test it on various devices here. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut