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=-6.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 7A6C4C4338F for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 10:52:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AAA8610D0 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 10:52:53 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 0AAA8610D0 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 8F0B48D0001; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 06:52:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 8A08A6B0071; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 06:52:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 78F518D0001; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 06:52:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0228.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.228]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 593BD6B006C for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 06:52:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin05.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E675718295477 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 10:52:52 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78513290184.05.FDC8D9C Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf19.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EC48B0000A5 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 10:52:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 02E7B610E5; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 10:52:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1629888771; bh=wm/yb9SVVnMKeowdOVQ2W/ip4zg5t33mCRFwPPOzq7A=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=iShINh3oJ8Rcc2cl2KJc5Jtsa7Dokhiz1B65W7jaL6cTLE7DjjRdMkt1Y+fJEBKZq 6xupFeWAYzVpMXiyNOmOYJI/Zq/LnHXfP5az0zNR0Hn8o2SIljCOrsOccFkQnefCZL DxxJGJU5Uuj54cLKrNVpKFaQsX5iBTh34WilA8qBBrZ5OrVd/dxkqGSpBzOVw1ZKx3 gVt3wzBy072e3D7QYdf6Ld6owwTctOS9ECgwupHWfuYExg6AYsGbfT+BpA0EVYPjwG wK8JQKLK7UWJlqKuOSac+OG+6vs2x7BIZv0dwmMU1TETXhmXmSex7EyeK7EoFeBPwU QM3Pwa3tjr3ZA== Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 13:52:45 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: Catalin Marinas Cc: David Hildenbrand , Robin Murphy , Alex Bee , Will Deacon , Andrew Morton , Anshuman Khandual , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-mm@kvack.org, Linux ARM , Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [BUG 5.14] arm64/mm: dma memory mapping fails (in some cases) Message-ID: References: <20210824173741.GC623@arm.com> <0908ce39-7e30-91fa-68ef-11620f9596ae@arm.com> <60a11eba-2910-3b5f-ef96-97d4556c1596@redhat.com> <20210825102044.GA3420@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210825102044.GA3420@arm.com> Authentication-Results: imf19.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=iShINh3o; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=kernel.org; spf=pass (imf19.hostedemail.com: domain of rppt@kernel.org designates 198.145.29.99 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=rppt@kernel.org X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 8EC48B0000A5 X-Stat-Signature: wbaxu3uncgcbu78umw8fdu7nq14gd3cn X-HE-Tag: 1629888772-685756 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, Aug 25, 2021 at 11:20:46AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > + hch > > 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?). Since for the most cases pfn_valid() would actually mean RAM, the confusion is really widespread :( Using pfn_is_map_memory() in kern_addr_valid() seems to me a better choice that pfn_valid(). > > > > > Either pfn_valid() gets confused in 5.14 or something is wrong with the > > > > > DT. I have a suspicion it's the former since reverting the above commit > > > > > makes it disappear. > > > > > > > > I think pfn_valid() actually behaves as expected but the caller is wrong > > > > because pfn_valid != RAM (this applies btw to !arm64 as well). > > > > > > > > /* Don't allow RAM to be mapped */ > > > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(pfn_valid(PHYS_PFN(phys_addr)))) > > > > return DMA_MAPPING_ERROR; > > > > > > > > Alex, can you please try this patch: > > > > > > That will certainly paper over the issue, but it's avoiding the question > > > of what went wrong with the memory map in the first place. The comment > > > is indeed a bit inaccurate, but ultimately dma_map_resource() exists for > > > addresses that would be wrong to pass to dma_map_page(), so I believe > > > pfn_valid() is still the correct check. > > > > If we want to check for RAM, pfn_valid() would be wrong. If we want to check > > for "is there a memmap, for whatever lives or does not live there", > > pfn_valid() is the right check. > > So what should the DMA code use instead? Last time we needed something > similar, the recommendation was to use pfn_to_online_page(). Mike is > suggesting memblock_is_memory(). This was a for testing purposes :) I considered some ugly fix for v5.14 with a __weak check in dma/mapping.c for backward compatibility and an override in arm64 and then a proper audit for v5.15. But as Will went for revert this is not really relevant. > Given how later we are in the -rc cycle, I suggest we revert Anshuman's > commit 16c9afc77660 ("arm64/mm: drop HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID") and try to > assess the implications in 5.15 (the patch doesn't seem to have the > arm64 maintainers' ack anyway ;)). > > Thanks. > > -- > Catalin -- Sincerely yours, Mike.