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=-10.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable 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 54D1FC4338F for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 11:12:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6F6E610E5 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 11:12:44 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org D6F6E610E5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 6DE948D0001; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 07:12:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 6678C6B0071; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 07:12:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 508958D0001; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 07:12:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0073.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.73]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 301EA6B006C for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 07:12:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin25.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5DA4253CC for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 11:12:43 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78513340206.25.A4B3CEE Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by imf04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56D5650000B3 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 11:12:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1629889962; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=mlZrdwxyxNGVrCxVZHW8/Pp6CcGFK5pPfiHHHiWvgYs=; b=bCSA8/81AQmW5pKGpV88oV5PfA4kq37JMfzwUzSBjpfAHyByOvQ7wfUZjq/RU5877qQ282 5t9VxRlpNSccFSnna3Vmdlhc9Dw8MkkTTOd6ARP3cydJxT0k4urxgOg8epEyot9XcZAh8N +FGbj6HOOR9M/pE9tZ+8VfFn5Oxhujw= Received: from mail-wr1-f71.google.com (mail-wr1-f71.google.com [209.85.221.71]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-149-VIG4lN7wNzO3fDymMpjqJQ-1; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 07:12:39 -0400 X-MC-Unique: VIG4lN7wNzO3fDymMpjqJQ-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f71.google.com with SMTP id z15-20020adff74f000000b001577d70c98dso24596wrp.12 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 04:12:39 -0700 (PDT) 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:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mlZrdwxyxNGVrCxVZHW8/Pp6CcGFK5pPfiHHHiWvgYs=; b=ocZ1jHpPurnIDvyMqCdIEKPVDhWRuAiOnSeuX34dj1stiMp5GiJeSc9t17NhJaPNKM nrc7Uiu9rJyciTI4fjx3Ofntiy2QPtcAC9EfY+UaruowuKm8vglJFnKAayGLssnG7WsU eoTZAEoXGJm1nZI4CAuCJ4G16kX8GX5KUvoROX03bhfcze2BHzr4N+mrJa+rn5r+YGxU 4eNWj/2AiLiyhcMynFAimQxJ4MjW/xBDCbLoVQGpGasNLRz+1DsRo95vIyhvCcUmKzlN kvq93V1p6sv/yeIavwgp9YybRcaB3b+mj2CyHG2HcDaMO36OchLw+JspwRgOZcI+BkSy k16w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532/5tDt1rygvP5CGMY0QzvDUDx0fGMI1NJ9btDnvQnD37mhiU3W H4TJrDiG6+0cOEFz83l9lxNzc/glij2fKeHETPKilEw58RXXLojWmhBIfzLpgpVfEalNge9K5nJ PSlZMsNZEjFA= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:a7d2:: with SMTP id q201mr8673064wme.77.1629889958426; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 04:12:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwPYsoqyixurCYV2/i4Ak4XtssI6+XlDP4VkKl4oAoJCywccuN7PduZAQrM/yipMWB60N8Lrw== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:a7d2:: with SMTP id q201mr8673042wme.77.1629889958223; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 04:12:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.3.132] (p4ff23d6b.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [79.242.61.107]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b12sm25073911wrx.72.2021.08.25.04.12.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 25 Aug 2021 04:12:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [BUG 5.14] arm64/mm: dma memory mapping fails (in some cases) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Robin Murphy , Mike Rapoport , Alex Bee , Will Deacon , Andrew Morton , Anshuman Khandual , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-mm@kvack.org, Linux ARM , Christoph Hellwig References: <20210824173741.GC623@arm.com> <0908ce39-7e30-91fa-68ef-11620f9596ae@arm.com> <60a11eba-2910-3b5f-ef96-97d4556c1596@redhat.com> <20210825102044.GA3420@arm.com> <20210825105510.GB3420@arm.com> From: David Hildenbrand Organization: Red Hat Message-ID: <547785ff-e02f-df28-7f9c-9ad4f5b3cc77@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 13:12:37 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210825105510.GB3420@arm.com> X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Authentication-Results: imf04.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b="bCSA8/81"; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=none (imf04.hostedemail.com: domain of david@redhat.com has no SPF policy when checking 216.205.24.124) smtp.mailfrom=david@redhat.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam06 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 56D5650000B3 X-Stat-Signature: yxm3u158mi4ysuabtyau1o1gwgfjjgdp X-HE-Tag: 1629889963-973753 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 25.08.21 12:55, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 12:38:31PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 25.08.21 12:20, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 08:59:22PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>> On 24.08.21 20:46, Robin Murphy wrote: >>>>> On 2021-08-24 19:28, Mike Rapoport wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 06:37:41PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 03:40:47PM +0200, Alex Bee wrote: >>>>>>>> it seems there is a regression in arm64 memory mapping in 5.14, since it >>>>>>>> fails on Rockchip RK3328 when the pl330 dmac tries to map with: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------[ cut here ]------------ >>>>>>>> WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 373 at kernel/dma/mapping.c:235 dma_map_resource+0x68/0xc0 >>>>>>>> Modules linked in: spi_rockchip(+) fuse >>>>>>>> CPU: 2 PID: 373 Comm: systemd-udevd Not tainted 5.14.0-rc7 #1 >>>>>>>> Hardware name: Pine64 Rock64 (DT) >>>>>>>> pstate: 80000005 (Nzcv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO BTYPE=--) >>>>>>>> pc : dma_map_resource+0x68/0xc0 >>>>>>>> lr : pl330_prep_slave_fifo+0x78/0xd0 >>>>>>>> sp : ffff800012102ae0 >>>>>>>> x29: ffff800012102ae0 x28: ffff000005c94800 x27: 0000000000000000 >>>>>>>> x26: ffff000000566bd0 x25: 0000000000000001 x24: 0000000000000001 >>>>>>>> x23: 0000000000000002 x22: ffff000000628c00 x21: 0000000000000001 >>>>>>>> x20: ffff000000566bd0 x19: 0000000000000001 x18: 0000000000000000 >>>>>>>> x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000 x15: 0000000000000000 >>>>>>>> x14: 0000000000000277 x13: 0000000000000001 x12: 0000000000000000 >>>>>>>> x11: 0000000000000001 x10: 00000000000008e0 x9 : ffff800012102a80 >>>>>>>> x8 : ffff000000d14b80 x7 : ffff0000fe7b12f0 x6 : ffff0000fe7b1100 >>>>>>>> x5 : fffffc000000000f x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : 0000000000000001 >>>>>>>> x2 : 0000000000000001 x1 : 00000000ff190800 x0 : ffff000000628c00 >>>>>>>> Call trace: >>>>>>>> dma_map_resource+0x68/0xc0 >>>>>>>> pl330_prep_slave_sg+0x58/0x220 >>>>>>>> rockchip_spi_prepare_dma+0xd8/0x2c0 [spi_rockchip] >>>>>>>> rockchip_spi_transfer_one+0x294/0x3d8 [spi_rockchip] >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>> Note: This does not relate to the spi driver - when disabling this device in >>>>>>>> the device tree it fails for any other (i2s, for instance) which uses dma. >>>>>>>> Commenting out the failing check at [1], however, helps and the mapping >>>>>>>> works again. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you know which address dma_map_resource() is trying to map (maybe >>>>>>> add some printk())? It's not supposed to map RAM, hence the warning. >>>>>>> Random guess, the address is 0xff190800 (based on the x1 above but the >>>>>>> regs might as well be mangled). >>>>>> >>>>>> 0xff190800 will cause this warning for sure. It has a memory map, but it is >>>>>> not RAM so old version of pfn_valid() would return 0 and the new one >>>>>> returns 1. >>>>> >>>>> How does that happen, though? It's not a memory address, and it's not >>>>> even within the bounds of anywhere there should or could be memory. This >>>>> SoC has a simple memory map - everything from 0 to 0xfeffffff goes to >>>>> the DRAM controller (which may not all be populated, and may have pieces >>>>> carved out by secure firmware), while 0xff000000-0xffffffff is MMIO. Why >>>>> do we have pages (or at least the assumption of pages) for somewhere >>>>> which by all rights should not have them? >>>> >>>> Simple: we allocate the vmemmap for whole sections (e.g., 128 MiB) to avoid >>>> any such hacks. If there is a memory hole, it gets a memmap as well. >>>> >>>> Tricking pfn_valid() into returning "false" where we actually have a memmap >>>> only makes it look like there is no memmap; but there is one, and >>>> it's PG_reserved. >>> >>> I can see the documentation for pfn_valid() does not claim anything more >>> than the presence of an memmap entry. But I wonder whether the confusion >>> is wider-spread than just the DMA code. At a quick grep, try_ram_remap() >>> assumes __va() can be used on pfn_valid(), though I suspect it relies on >>> the calling function to check that the resource was RAM. The arm64 >>> kern_addr_valid() returns true based on pfn_valid() and kcore.c uses >>> standard memcpy on it, which wouldn't work for I/O (should we change >>> this check to pfn_is_map_memory() for arm64?). >> >> kern_addr_valid() checks that there is a direct map entry, and that the >> mapped address has a valid mmap. (copied from x86-64) > > It checks that there is a va->pa mapping, not necessarily in the linear > map as it walks the page tables. So for some I/O range that happens to > be mapped but which was in close proximity to RAM so that pfn_valid() is > true, kern_addr_valid() would return true. I don't thin that was the > intention. > >> Would you expect to have a direct map for memory holes and similar (IOW, >> !System RAM)? > > No, but we with the generic pfn_valid(), it may return true for mapped > MMIO (with different attributes than the direct map). Ah, right. But can we actually run into that via kcore? kcore builds the RAM list via walk_system_ram_range(), IOW the resource tree. And we end up calling kern_addr_valid() only on KCORE_RAM, KCORE_VMEMMAP and KCORE_TEXT. Not saying that kern_addr_valid() shouldn't be improved. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb