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=-8.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,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 D8FEDC352AA for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 07:38:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54D32215EA for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 07:38:33 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 54D32215EA Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46jp0Q6n4bzDqWs for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 17:38:30 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=rppt@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46jny90jrczDqWJ for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 17:36:31 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x927aPC6136354 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 03:36:27 -0400 Received: from e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.98]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2vckrce4a9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2019 03:36:27 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 08:36:23 +0100 Received: from b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.26.192) by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.132) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Wed, 2 Oct 2019 08:36:12 +0100 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x927ZgPA34865576 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 2 Oct 2019 07:35:42 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E0EA4060; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 07:36:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDD2EA4054; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 07:36:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.ibm.com (unknown [9.148.8.153]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 07:36:07 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 10:36:06 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: Adam Ford Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/21] Refine memblock API References:

<20190926160433.GD32311@linux.ibm.com> <20190928073331.GA5269@linux.ibm.com>

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19100207-0008-0000-0000-0000031D3BD8 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19100207-0009-0000-0000-00004A3C3DD3 Message-Id: <20191002073605.GA30433@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-10-02_04:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1910020071 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Rich Felker , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Heiko Carstens , linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, Max Filippov , devicetree , Guo Ren , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Fabio Estevam , 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, Chris Healy , uclinux-h8-devel@lists.sourceforge.jp, Petr Mladek , linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.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 Kernel Mailing List , Paul Burton , Vineet Gupta , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "David S. Miller" , openrisc@lists.librecores.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" 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! >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. 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.