Date:	Mon, 07 Jan 2013 19:03:47 -0800
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Cc:	Shuah Khan <shuahkhan@...il.com>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@....de>,
	Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7u1 26/31] x86: Don't enable swiotlb if there is not enough ram for it

Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> writes:

> On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 06:22:51PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Shuah Khan <shuahkhan@...il.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
>> > <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 02:10:25PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> >>> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkhan@...il.com> wrote:
>> >>> > Pani'cing the system doesn't sound like a good option to me in this
>> >>> > case. This change to disable swiotlb is made for kdump. However, with
>> >>> > this change several system fail to boot, unless crashkernel_low=72M is
>> >>> > specified.
>> >>>
>> >>> this patchset is new feature to put second kdump kernel above 4G.
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I would the say the right approach to solve this would be to not
>> >>> > change the current pci_swiotlb_detect_override() behavior and treat
>> >>> > swiotlb =1 upon entry equivalent to swiotlb_force set.
>> >>>
>> >>> that will make intel system have to take crashkernel_low=72M too.
>> >>> otherwise intel system will get panic during swiotlb allocation.
>> >>
>> >> Two things:
>> >>
>> >>  1). You need to wrap the 'is_enough_..' in CONFIG_KEXEC, which means
>> >>     that the function needs to go in a header file.
>> >>  2). The check for 1MB is suspect. Why only 1MB? You mentioned it is
>> >>      b/c of crashkernel_low=72M (which I am not seeing in v3.8 kernel-parameters.txt?
>> >>      Is that part of your mega-patchset?). Anyhow, there seems to be a disconnect -
>> >>      what if the user supplied crashkernel_low=27M? Perhaps the 'is_enough'
>> >>      should also parse the bootparams to double-check that there is enough
>> >>      low-mem space? But then if the kernel grows then 72M might not be enough -
>> >>      you might need 82M with 3.9.
>> >>
>> >>      Perhaps a better way for this is to do:
>> >>         1). Change 'is_enough' to check only for 4MB.
>> >>         2). When booting as kexec, the SWIOTLB would only use 4MB instead of 64MB?
>> >>
>> >>      Or, we could also use the post-late SWIOTLB initialization similiary to how it was
>> >>      done on ia64. This would mean that the AMD VI code would just call the
>> >>      .. something like this - NOT tested or even compile tested:
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c
>> >> index c1c74e0..e7fa8f7 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c
>> >> @@ -3173,6 +3173,24 @@ int __init amd_iommu_init_dma_ops(void)
>> >>         if (unhandled && max_pfn > MAX_DMA32_PFN) {
>> >>                 /* There are unhandled devices - initialize swiotlb for them */
>> >>                 swiotlb = 1;
>> >> +               /* Late (so no bootmem allocator) usage and only if the early SWIOTLB
>> >> +                * hadn't been allocated (which can happen on kexec kernels booted
>> >> +                * above 4GB). */
>> >> +               if (!swiotlb_nr_tbl()) {
>> >> +                       int retry = 3;
>> >> +                       int mb_size = 64;
>> >> +                       int rc = 0;
>> >> +retry_me:
>> >> +                       if (retry < 0)
>> >> +                               panic("We tried setting %dMB for SWIOTLB but got -ENOMEM", mb_size << 1);
>> >> +                       rc = swiotlb_late_init_with_default_size(mb_size * (1<<20));
>> >> +                       if (rc) {
>> >> +                               retry --;
>> >> +                               mb_size >> 1;
>> >> +                               goto retry_me;
>> >> +                       }
>> >> +                       dma_ops = &swiotlb_dma_ops;
>> >> +               }
>> >>         }
>> >>
>> >>         amd_iommu_stats_init();
>> >>
>> >> And then the early SWIOTLB initialization for 64MB can fail and we are still OK.
>> >>>
>> >
>> > Yinghai/Konrad,
>> >
>> > Did more testing. btw this patch depends on your [v7u1,25/31]
>> > memblock: add memblock_mem_size(). Here are the test results:
>> >
>> > 1. When there is not enough memory: (enough_mem_for_swiotlb() returns false)
>> > system will panic in amd_iommu_init_dma_ops().
>> >
>> > 2. When there is enough memory: (enough_mem_for_swiotlb() returns true):
>> > swiotlb is reserved
>> > pci_swiotlb_late_init() leaves the buffer allocated since swiotlb=1
>> > with that getting changed in amd_iommu_init_dma_ops().
>> >
>> > I agree with Konrad that the logic should be wrapped in CONFIG_KEXEC.
>> 
>> If enough_mem_for_swiotlb needs to be conditional on CONFIG_KEXEC the
>> code is architected wrong.  None of this logic has anything to do with
>> kexec except that the kexec path is one way to get this condition to
>> happen.  Especially since the kexec'd kernel where this condition occurs
>> does not need kexec support built in.
>
> Fair enough - with the 'memmap' command line options one can trigger
> this.
>> 
>> Yinghai I sat down and read your patch and the approach you are taking
>> is totally wrong.
>> 
>> The problem is that swiotlb_init() in lib/swiotlb.c does not know how to
>> fail without panic'ing the system.
>> 
>> Which leaves two valid approaches.
>> - Create a variant of swiotlb_init that can fail for use on x86 and
>>   handle the failure.
>
> As an safe-fail step we could retry with an smaller size until a fit is found.
>
>> - Delay initializing the swiotlb until someone actually needs a mapping
>>   from it.  
>
> So late init the SWIOTLB and perhaps have multiple "segments" of 4MB
> of SWIOTLB that can grow as we exhaust its memory. Could work.
>> 
>> Delaying the initialization of the swiotlb is out because the code
>> needs an early memory allocation to get a large chunk of contiguous
>> memory for the bounce buffers.
>
> Or it can use the late init, but with a smaller chunk of memory.

A reasonable point.

>> Which means the panics that occurr in swiotlb_init() need to be delayed
>> until someone something actually needs bounce buffers from the swiotlb.
>> 
>> Although arguably what should actually happen instead of panic() is that
>> swiotlb_map_single should simply fail early when it was not possible to
>> preallocate bounce buffers.
>
> This sounds like a Catch-22. Fail early implies that it would have to do
> this when using the bootmem allocator.

Sorry I meant was something like.

... swiotlb_init(...)
{
        ...
	if (!alloc_bootmem_low_pages(...))
		noiotlb_memory = true;
 	...
}

... swiotlb_map_single(...)
{
	if (noiotlb_memory)
        	return SWIOTLB_MAP_ERROR;
	....
}

With the noiotlb_memory check happening early.

> But the swiotlb_map_single is not
> called at that time - it is called _after_ the bootmem allocator has been
> de-activated. Actually it is called pretty late - when built-in PCI devices
> start off or when 'udev' starts scanning the PCI bus and loading modules.
>
> I think I am misunderstanding you - could you clarify please?

Does the above help?

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists