Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/3] xen/swiotlb: remember having called xen_create_contiguous_region()

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/3] xen/swiotlb: remember having called xen_create_contiguous_region()

[Juergen Gross]

On 25/04/2019 11:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 23.04.19 at 20:36, <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>> On 23/04/2019 19:05, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2019, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> Instead of always calling xen_destroy_contiguous_region() in case the
>>>> memory is DMA-able for the used device, do so only in case it has been
>>>> made DMA-able via xen_create_contiguous_region() before.
>>>>
>>>> This will avoid a lot of xen_destroy_contiguous_region() calls for
>>>> 64-bit capable devices.
>>>>
>>>> As the memory in question is owned by swiotlb-xen the PG_owner_priv_1
>>>> flag of the first allocated page can be used for remembering.
>>>
>>> Although the patch looks OK, this sentence puzzles me. Why do you say
>>> that the memory in question is owned by swiotlb-xen? Because it was
>>> returned by xen_alloc_coherent_pages? Both the x86 and the Arm
>>> implementation return fresh new memory, hence, it should be safe to set
>>> the PageOwnerPriv1 flag?
>>>
>>> My concern with this approach is with the semantics of PG_owner_priv_1.
>>> Is a page marked with PG_owner_priv_1 only supposed to be used by the
>>> owner?
>>
>> The owner of the page is free to use the flag.
>>
>> Like Grant pages are marked by the grant driver using this flag. And
>> Xen page tables are using it in PV-guests for indicating a "Pinned"
>> page table.
> 
> Considering the background of the series, isn't such multi-purpose use
> of the flag a possible problem? You're already suspecting a wrong call
> into here. The function finding the flag set (but for another reason)
> might add to the confusion. But I realize there are only so many page
> flags available.

Right.

> Perhaps the freeing function should, first thing, check the handed
> space actually matches the criteria (within dma_mask and contiguous)?

Yes, I think this is a good idea.


Juergen

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/3] xen/swiotlb: remember having called xen_create_contiguous_region()

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 23.04.19 at 20:36, <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
> On 23/04/2019 19:05, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2019, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> Instead of always calling xen_destroy_contiguous_region() in case the
>>> memory is DMA-able for the used device, do so only in case it has been
>>> made DMA-able via xen_create_contiguous_region() before.
>>>
>>> This will avoid a lot of xen_destroy_contiguous_region() calls for
>>> 64-bit capable devices.
>>>
>>> As the memory in question is owned by swiotlb-xen the PG_owner_priv_1
>>> flag of the first allocated page can be used for remembering.
>> 
>> Although the patch looks OK, this sentence puzzles me. Why do you say
>> that the memory in question is owned by swiotlb-xen? Because it was
>> returned by xen_alloc_coherent_pages? Both the x86 and the Arm
>> implementation return fresh new memory, hence, it should be safe to set
>> the PageOwnerPriv1 flag?
>> 
>> My concern with this approach is with the semantics of PG_owner_priv_1.
>> Is a page marked with PG_owner_priv_1 only supposed to be used by the
>> owner?
> 
> The owner of the page is free to use the flag.
> 
> Like Grant pages are marked by the grant driver using this flag. And
> Xen page tables are using it in PV-guests for indicating a "Pinned"
> page table.

Considering the background of the series, isn't such multi-purpose use
of the flag a possible problem? You're already suspecting a wrong call
into here. The function finding the flag set (but for another reason)
might add to the confusion. But I realize there are only so many page
flags available.

Perhaps the freeing function should, first thing, check the handed
space actually matches the criteria (within dma_mask and contiguous)?

Jan