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=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,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 3475DC35280 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 11:14:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEEC72086A for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 11:14:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="vHy1Q0oW" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CEEC72086A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 64D386B0005; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 07:14:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 624706B0006; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 07:14:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 511BF6B0007; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 07:14:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0213.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.213]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 282E16B0005 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 07:14:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin28.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BA042688F for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 11:14:24 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 75998586048.28.drug89_7dc0e16944104 X-HE-Tag: drug89_7dc0e16944104 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 14802 Received: from mail-io1-f68.google.com (mail-io1-f68.google.com [209.85.166.68]) by imf39.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 11:14:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io1-f68.google.com with SMTP id q10so56015117iop.2 for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2019 04:14:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZB4/wBe40ScWLOPnOnO2A5CCUN+N+AU8kGY9PrjNkCo=; b=vHy1Q0oWcWtdLVhbCIPh+2w9YyGU1ImOhLI5IYNI26dpCY56cp4nN11g6QdPghxgrv 20fT4a0g6KLE9VPM1GGk5WEkaW3W8ibLplns+b38ULo0BgoOcLLXCa7vMq/06HlDu8EM gYtJnvLmiztT9H85Z2TULtV8b8ID9SIHxTpPosRs4q7FgHjyH3IZpBXpQDID+/dgBUC+ En2Hlb2QAEqtnUaaBxS39e5+tgbBqdCQ3zi0GiT0+9AVVWt7MrDThyBGFLlAOVN5ZDXh tLAOiZcErI98+RWq/9yucOO1d/qVlE8fzwQR20ke0rf9w1JhzdrTYUO+QEJ+9ZevRBiw SNvA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZB4/wBe40ScWLOPnOnO2A5CCUN+N+AU8kGY9PrjNkCo=; b=inSD1K6ObjCHIucxELQHlBtqvTbMKdEwjn6HNFU3RL/Iy/YgSzEjdMQoWO+MoZaz6W qXA8IyWnvI5Mx6s4mpavOCD6wLg8IyYCbqfqfTXm1EKm54WctqDiQyUQyXJKnQoSfUU/ AWlyQCaiiS7Zi+C2G+yIKorfuy3mRMl43GziWOb5OcafVXTHrad4RXAGXwia6StXUdMK Lm75AhmKjnOD8sV859097ZslhexpuP4TuZ24DJMrQnCAz1N9+nui82yNstZMutjDJD0C 59b5KZD8Q9EaSfo0Vup2afAaFI3kcjcTo/tag8Tagbl3Vw54LDIhteikKsQaL9qfRNJ3 grHw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXwGcvecRVfDLRtPYEBg0BuTUZzT3Ccz57AzXy/+7oIcru5j+KI wEdLgnQVh0VhdvQv0dDaPSXEC0eHSDTjRdQDvU8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxt3TCdlj0r7UU5RMh1pKp58F/EEIucnVtIKTi1s6mnbV7Wt5Su0S7y51mDcoVCyuPplnln+o3jSRMB6j2CKEI= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:d601:: with SMTP id w1mr2668972ioa.158.1570014862922; Wed, 02 Oct 2019 04:14:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190926160433.GD32311@linux.ibm.com> <20190928073331.GA5269@linux.ibm.com> <20191002073605.GA30433@linux.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20191002073605.GA30433@linux.ibm.com> From: Adam Ford Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 06:14:11 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/21] Refine memblock API To: Mike Rapoport Cc: Fabio Estevam , Rich Felker , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Petr Mladek , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Heiko Carstens , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Max Filippov , Guo Ren , Michael Ellerman , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org, Yoshinori Sato , Richard Weinberger , x86@kernel.org, Russell King , kasan-dev , Geert Uytterhoeven , Mark Salter , Dennis Zhou , Matt Turner , linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org, uclinux-h8-devel@lists.sourceforge.jp, devicetree , linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, The etnaviv authors , linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, Rob Herring , Greentime Hu , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Stafford Horne , Guan Xuetao , arm-soc , Michal Simek , Tony Luck , Linux Memory Management List , Greg Kroah-Hartman , USB list , linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, Paul Burton , Vineet Gupta , linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "David S. Miller" , openrisc@lists.librecores.org, Chris Healy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 2:36 AM Mike Rapoport wrote: > > Hi Adam, > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 07:14:13PM -0500, Adam Ford wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 8:33 AM Adam Ford wrote: > > > > > > I am attaching two logs. I now the mailing lists will be unhappy, but > > > don't want to try and spam a bunch of log through the mailing liast. > > > The two logs show the differences between the working and non-working > > > imx6q 3D accelerator when trying to run a simple glmark2-es2-drm demo. > > > > > > The only change between them is the 2 line code change you suggested. > > > > > > In both cases, I have cma=128M set in my bootargs. Historically this > > > has been sufficient, but cma=256M has not made a difference. > > > > > > > Mike any suggestions on how to move forward? > > I was hoping to get the fixes tested and pushed before 5.4 is released > > if at all possible > > I have a fix (below) that kinda restores the original behaviour, but I > still would like to double check to make sure it's not a band aid and I > haven't missed the actual root cause. > > Can you please send me your device tree definition and the output of > > cat /sys/kernel/debug/memblock/memory > > and > > cat /sys/kernel/debug/memblock/reserved > > Thanks! > Before the patch: # cat /sys/kernel/debug/memblock/memory 0: 0x10000000..0x8fffffff # cat /sys/kernel/debug/memblock/reserved 0: 0x10004000..0x10007fff 1: 0x10100000..0x11ab141f 2: 0x1fff1000..0x1fffcfff 3: 0x2ee40000..0x2ef53fff 4: 0x2ef56940..0x2ef56c43 5: 0x2ef56c48..0x2fffefff 6: 0x2ffff0c0..0x2ffff4d8 7: 0x2ffff500..0x2ffff55f 8: 0x2ffff580..0x2ffff703 9: 0x2ffff740..0x2ffff918 10: 0x2ffff940..0x2ffff9cf 11: 0x2ffffa00..0x2ffffa0f 12: 0x2ffffa40..0x2ffffa43 13: 0x2ffffa80..0x2ffffad5 14: 0x2ffffb00..0x2ffffb55 15: 0x2ffffb80..0x2ffffbd5 16: 0x2ffffc00..0x2ffffc4e 17: 0x2ffffc50..0x2ffffc6a 18: 0x2ffffc6c..0x2ffffce6 19: 0x2ffffce8..0x2ffffd02 20: 0x2ffffd04..0x2ffffd1e 21: 0x2ffffd20..0x2ffffd3a 22: 0x2ffffd3c..0x2ffffd56 23: 0x2ffffd58..0x2ffffe30 24: 0x2ffffe34..0x2ffffe4c 25: 0x2ffffe50..0x2ffffe68 26: 0x2ffffe6c..0x2ffffe84 27: 0x2ffffe88..0x2ffffea0 28: 0x2ffffea4..0x2ffffebc 29: 0x2ffffec0..0x2ffffedf 30: 0x2ffffee4..0x2ffffefc 31: 0x2fffff00..0x2fffff13 32: 0x2fffff28..0x2fffff4b 33: 0x2fffff50..0x2fffff84 34: 0x2fffff88..0x3fffffff After the patch: # cat /sys/kernel/debug/memblock/memory 0: 0x10000000..0x8fffffff # cat /sys/kernel/debug/memblock/reserved 0: 0x10004000..0x10007fff 1: 0x10100000..0x11ab141f 2: 0x1fff1000..0x1fffcfff 3: 0x3eec0000..0x3efd3fff 4: 0x3efd6940..0x3efd6c43 5: 0x3efd6c48..0x3fffbfff 6: 0x3fffc0c0..0x3fffc4d8 7: 0x3fffc500..0x3fffc55f 8: 0x3fffc580..0x3fffc703 9: 0x3fffc740..0x3fffc918 10: 0x3fffc940..0x3fffc9cf 11: 0x3fffca00..0x3fffca0f 12: 0x3fffca40..0x3fffca43 13: 0x3fffca80..0x3fffca83 14: 0x3fffcac0..0x3fffcb15 15: 0x3fffcb40..0x3fffcb95 16: 0x3fffcbc0..0x3fffcc15 17: 0x3fffcc28..0x3fffcc72 18: 0x3fffcc74..0x3fffcc8e 19: 0x3fffcc90..0x3fffcd0a 20: 0x3fffcd0c..0x3fffcd26 21: 0x3fffcd28..0x3fffcd42 22: 0x3fffcd44..0x3fffcd5e 23: 0x3fffcd60..0x3fffcd7a 24: 0x3fffcd7c..0x3fffce54 25: 0x3fffce58..0x3fffce70 26: 0x3fffce74..0x3fffce8c 27: 0x3fffce90..0x3fffcea8 28: 0x3fffceac..0x3fffcec4 29: 0x3fffcec8..0x3fffcee0 30: 0x3fffcee4..0x3fffcefc 31: 0x3fffcf00..0x3fffcf1f 32: 0x3fffcf28..0x3fffcf53 33: 0x3fffcf68..0x3fffcf8b 34: 0x3fffcf90..0x3fffcfac 35: 0x3fffcfb0..0x3fffffff 36: 0x80000000..0x8fffffff > From 06529f861772b7dea2912fc2245debe4690139b8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Mike Rapoport > Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 10:14:17 +0300 > Subject: [PATCH] mm: memblock: do not enforce current limit for memblock_phys* > family > > Until commit 92d12f9544b7 ("memblock: refactor internal allocation > functions") the maximal address for memblock allocations was forced to > memblock.current_limit only for the allocation functions returning virtual > address. The changes introduced by that commit moved the limit enforcement > into the allocation core and as a result the allocation functions returning > physical address also started to limit allocations to > memblock.current_limit. > > This caused breakage of etnaviv GPU driver: > > [ 3.682347] etnaviv etnaviv: bound 130000.gpu (ops gpu_ops) > [ 3.688669] etnaviv etnaviv: bound 134000.gpu (ops gpu_ops) > [ 3.695099] etnaviv etnaviv: bound 2204000.gpu (ops gpu_ops) > [ 3.700800] etnaviv-gpu 130000.gpu: model: GC2000, revision: 5108 > [ 3.723013] etnaviv-gpu 130000.gpu: command buffer outside valid > memory window > [ 3.731308] etnaviv-gpu 134000.gpu: model: GC320, revision: 5007 > [ 3.752437] etnaviv-gpu 134000.gpu: command buffer outside valid > memory window > [ 3.760583] etnaviv-gpu 2204000.gpu: model: GC355, revision: 1215 > [ 3.766766] etnaviv-gpu 2204000.gpu: Ignoring GPU with VG and FE2.0 > > Restore the behaviour of memblock_phys* family so that these functions will > not enforce memblock.current_limit. > This fixed the issue. Thank you Tested-by: Adam Ford #imx6q-logicpd > Fixes: 92d12f9544b7 ("memblock: refactor internal allocation functions") > Reported-by: Adam Ford > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport > --- > mm/memblock.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c > index 7d4f61a..c4b16ca 100644 > --- a/mm/memblock.c > +++ b/mm/memblock.c > @@ -1356,9 +1356,6 @@ static phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_range_nid(phys_addr_t size, > align = SMP_CACHE_BYTES; > } > > - if (end > memblock.current_limit) > - end = memblock.current_limit; > - > again: > found = memblock_find_in_range_node(size, align, start, end, nid, > flags); > @@ -1469,6 +1466,9 @@ static void * __init memblock_alloc_internal( > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(slab_is_available())) > return kzalloc_node(size, GFP_NOWAIT, nid); > > + if (max_addr > memblock.current_limit) > + max_addr = memblock.current_limit; > + > alloc = memblock_alloc_range_nid(size, align, min_addr, max_addr, nid); > > /* retry allocation without lower limit */ > -- > 2.7.4 > > > > > adam > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 2:33 AM Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:35:53PM -0500, Adam Ford wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:04 AM Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 08:09:52AM -0500, Adam Ford wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 10:17 AM Fabio Estevam wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 9:17 AM Adam Ford wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I tried cma=256M and noticed the cma dump at the beginning didn't > > > > > > > > > change. Do we need to setup a reserved-memory node like > > > > > > > > > imx6ul-ccimx6ulsom.dtsi did? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Were you able to identify what was the exact commit that caused such regression? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was able to narrow it down the 92d12f9544b7 ("memblock: refactor > > > > > > > internal allocation functions") that caused the regression with > > > > > > > Etnaviv. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you please test with this change: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That appears to have fixed my issue. I am not sure what the impact > > > > > is, but is this a safe option? > > > > > > > > It's not really a fix, I just wanted to see how exactly 92d12f9544b7 ("memblock: > > > > refactor internal allocation functions") broke your setup. > > > > > > > > Can you share the dts you are using and the full kernel log? > > > > > > > > > adam > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c > > > > > > index 7d4f61a..1f5a0eb 100644 > > > > > > --- a/mm/memblock.c > > > > > > +++ b/mm/memblock.c > > > > > > @@ -1356,9 +1356,6 @@ static phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_range_nid(phys_addr_t size, > > > > > > align = SMP_CACHE_BYTES; > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > - if (end > memblock.current_limit) > > > > > > - end = memblock.current_limit; > > > > > > - > > > > > > again: > > > > > > found = memblock_find_in_range_node(size, align, start, end, nid, > > > > > > flags); > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also noticed that if I create a reserved memory node as was done one > > > > > > > imx6ul-ccimx6ulsom.dtsi the 3D seems to work again, but without it, I > > > > > > > was getting errors regardless of the 'cma=256M' or not. > > > > > > > I don't have a problem using the reserved memory, but I guess I am not > > > > > > > sure what the amount should be. I know for the video decoding 1080p, > > > > > > > I have historically used cma=128M, but with the 3D also needing some > > > > > > > memory allocation, is that enough or should I use 256M? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > adam > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Sincerely yours, > > > > > > Mike. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Sincerely yours, > > > > Mike. > > > > > > -- > Sincerely yours, > Mike. >