Re: For the problem when using swiotlb

[Catalin Marinas]

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 08:12:09PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 21 November 2014 18:09:25 Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 05:51:19PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 05:04:28PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Friday 21 November 2014 16:57:09 Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > > There is a scenario where smaller mask would work on arm64. For example
> > > > > Juno, you can have 2GB of RAM in the 32-bit phys range (starting at
> > > > > 0x80000000). A device with 31-bit mask and a dma_pfn_offset of
> > > > > 0x80000000 would still work (there isn't any but just as an example). So
> > > > > the check in dma_alloc_coherent() would be something like:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	phys_to_dma(top of ZONE_DMA) - dma_pfn_offset <= coherent_dma_mask
> > > > > 
> > > > > (or assuming RAM starts at 0 and ignoring dma_pfn_offset for now)
> > > > > 
> > > > > If the condition above fails, dma_alloc_coherent() would no longer fall
> > > > > back to swiotlb but issue a dev_warn() and return NULL.
> > > > 
> > > > Ah, that looks like it should work on all architectures, very nice.
> > > > How about checking this condition, and then printing a small warning
> > > > (dev_warn, not WARN_ON) and setting the dma_mask pointer to NULL?
> > > 
> > > I would not add the above ZONE_DMA check to of_dma_configure(). For
> > > example on arm64, we may not support a small coherent_dma_mask but the
> > > same value for dma_mask could be fine via swiotlb bouncing (or IOMMU).
> > > However, that's an arch-specific decision. Maybe after the above setting
> > > of dev->coherent_dma_mask in of_dma_configure(), we could add:
> 
> You seem to implement the opposite:

Possibly, but I had something else in mind.

> > +	/*
> > +	 * If the bus dma-ranges property specifies a size smaller than 4GB,
> > +	 * the device would not be capable of accessing the whole 32-bit
> > +	 * space, so reduce the default coherent_dma_mask accordingly.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (size && size < (1ULL << 32))
> > +		dev->coherent_dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(ilog2(size));
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Set dma_mask to coherent_dma_mask by default if the architecture
> > +	 * code has not set it and DMA on such mask is supported.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (!dev->dma_mask && dma_supported(dev, dev->coherent_dma_mask))
> > +		dev->dma_mask = &dev->coherent_dma_mask;
> >  }
> 
> Here, coherent_dma_mask wouldn't work while dma_mask might be
> fine in case of swiotlb, but you set a nonzero coherent_dma_mask
> and an invalid dma_mask.

My assumption is that dma_supported() only checks the validity of
dma_mask (not the coherent one). On arm64 it is currently routed to
swiotlb_dma_supported() which returns true if the swiotlb bounce buffer
is within that mask. So if the coherent_dma_mask is enough for swiotlb
bounce buffer, we point dma_mask to it. Otherwise, there is no way to do
streaming DMA to such mask, hence setting it to NULL.

Since we don't have a coherent_dma_supported() function, we defer the
validity check of coherent_dma_mask to dma_alloc_coherent() (and here we
can remove bouncing since swiotlb has relatively small buffers).

There is a slight downside if dma_supported() on the default 32-bit mask
fails, we end up with dma_mask == NULL and the driver calling
dma_set_mask_and_coherent(64-bit) would fail to set dma_mask even though
dma-ranges allows it. Is this a real scenario (not for arm64 where we
allow DMA into 32-bit via ZONE_DMA)?

-- 
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/