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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC21AC433F5 for ; Wed, 11 May 2022 14:09:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231359AbiEKOJD (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 May 2022 10:09:03 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57992 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S244381AbiEKOJD (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 May 2022 10:09:03 -0400 Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [145.40.68.75]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0620D69CF2; Wed, 11 May 2022 07:09:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5842B823EC; Wed, 11 May 2022 14:09:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B5C47C34113; Wed, 11 May 2022 14:08:57 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1652278139; bh=o5xX6sJ490PzLKK/fZ+dg3ieCtWuIK0BIN2ZYglmcSU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=n/+LK5uTuasJGcDXqcF0GVH52u8hAaFrbSlhBgleKlgPB7qeqLE8MUdP/dRazvxAj fJO7MaZY7xv0y+UW3ku69aRzDb9DOLILNqSNj2vSSCgm5YnH7PUqFDFncN7BAYnkcg c+DkyByzeTdpz75jqmSzoLs5Vknvl9nlTD9hAvL592nLUO6vVeGr+ODWqZC/cSmp0Y qdJsQvy++Rkw+C0A7IzSXvCYG6CCRBcaabzK+f8zFhtiTU4THNb2IllRWRMUxiHPbt ZTDup+yr2W2r41FyAeLLayyfwMxHnxVXlgAN0ThDChpyafU9H11iaw4ZcjSufwgQfW eQ/2qxMLDcPVQ== Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 17:08:52 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Conor.Dooley@microchip.com, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for May 3 Message-ID: References: <3f94c9a8-c927-5cc0-7d67-4b21c3d9dbaf@microchip.com> <9a424be9-380f-f99c-4126-25a00eba0271@microchip.com> <20220509141122.GA14555@lst.de> <505d41d1-1bc8-c8bc-5ebb-8a2b7934f3de@microchip.com> <20220511062232.GA32524@lst.de> <102578f2-5c10-e9c2-c1ef-e76ba90d011e@microchip.com> <20220511064832.GA761@lst.de> <2c0e2fbe-4e45-4acc-c2a7-4f4dcf9161a3@microchip.com> <20220511123724.GA25121@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220511123724.GA25121@lst.de> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 02:37:24PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 10:10:40AM +0000, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com wrote: > > Without even trying the patch, I double checked the boot log from > > 3f70356edf56 and I get a "software IO TLB: Cannot allocate buffer" > > With the patch its a "software IO TLB: swiotlb_init_remap: failed > > to allocate tlb structure". So spot on & I feel like an idiot for > > not spotting that before! > > > > Is failing being fatal valid, or should it fail gracefully like it > > used to do? To me, blissfully unaware about swiotlb, the "current" > > behaviour of failing gracefully makes more sense. > > Given that we're at -rc6 I think the most important thing for now is to > avoid a regression and restore the old behavior. I'll send out a > series with this and the nslab related fixes for Xen today. > > But we should look into why allocating the memory fails for your > plaforms. Does it have very little memory? I can't really think > of why else the memblock allocation for swiotlb would fail. I guess the default to use memblock_alloc_low() backfires on system with physical memory living at 0x1000200000: [ 0.000000] Early memory node ranges [ 0.000000] node 0: [mem 0x0000001000200000-0x000000103fffffff] The default limit for "low" memory is 0xffffffff and there is simply no memory there. -- Sincerely yours, Mike.