linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] enhance DMA CMA on x86

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 30 Sep 2014 10:34:31 -0400
From:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To:	Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Don Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	x86@...nel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] enhance DMA CMA on x86

On 09/29/2014 10:32 AM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> 2014-09-29 21:09 GMT+09:00 Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>:
>> On 09/27/2014 08:31 PM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>>> 2014-09-27 23:30 GMT+09:00 Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>:
>>>> On 04/15/2014 09:08 AM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>>>>> This patch set enhances the DMA Contiguous Memory Allocator on x86.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> What this patchset does is restrict all iommu configurations which can
>>>> map all of system memory to one _very_ small physical region, thus disabling
>>>> the whole point of an iommu.
>>>>
>>>> Now I know why my GPU is causing paging to disk! And why my RAID controller
>>>> stalls for ages when I do a git log at the same time as a kernel build!
>>>
>>> The solution I have for this is that instead of trying to
>>> dma_alloc_from_contiguous() firstly, call alloc_pages() in dma_alloc_coherent().
>>> dma_alloc_from_contiguous() should be called only when alloc_pages() is failed
>>> or DMA_ATTR_FORCE_CONTIGUOUS is specified in dma_attr.
>>
>> Why is all this extra complexity being added when there are no X86 users
>> of DMA_ATTR_FORCE_CONTIGUOUS?
> 
> I misunderstood DMA_ATTR_FORCE_CONTIGUOUS.  It is specified to request
> that underlaying DMA mapping span physically contiguous with IOMMU.
> But current alloc_dma_coherent() for intel-iommu always returns
> physically contiguous memory, so it is ignored on x86.
> 
>>>> And the apparent goal of this patchset is to enable DMA allocation below
>>>> 4GB, which is already supported in the existing page allocator with the
>>>> GFP_DMA32 flag?!
>>>
>>> The goal of this patchset is to enable huge DMA allocation which
>>> alloc_pages() can't (> MAX_ORDER) for the devices that require it.
>>
>> What x86 devices need > MAX_ORDER DMA allocation and why can't they allocate
>> directly from dma_alloc_from_contiguous()?
> 
> I need this for UFS unified memory extension which is apparently not in
> mainline for now.
> http://www.jedec.org/standards-documents/docs/jesd220-1
> http://www.jedec.org/sites/default/files/T_Fujisawa_MF_2013.pdf
> 
> But there must be some other use cases on x86, too.  Because I have
> received several emails privately from developers who care its status.
> 
> And allocating directly from dma_alloc_from_contiguous() in the driver
> doesn't work with IOMMU, as it just returns memory regoin and doesn't
> create DMA mapping.


I read the UFS Unified Memory Extension v1.0 (JESD220-1) specification and
it is not clear to me that using DMA mapping is the right approach to
supporting UM, at least on x86.

And without a mainline user, the merits of this approach are not evident.
I cannot even find a production x86 UFS controller, much less one that
supports UME.

The only PCI UFS controller I could find (and that mainline supports) is
Samsung's x86 FPGA-based test unit for developing UFS devices in a x86 test
environment, and not a production x86 design.

Samsung's own roadmap (http://www.slideshare.net/linaroorg/next-gen-mobilestorageufs)
mentions nothing about bringing UFS to x86 designs.

Unless there's something else I've missed, I don't think these patches
belong in mainline.

Regards,
Peter Hurley



--
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/