Message-ID: <1347921915.3227.143.camel@lorien2>
Date:	Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:45:15 -0600
From:	Shuah Khan <shuah.khan@...com>
To:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Cc:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, joerg.roedel@....com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, rob@...dley.net,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
	stern@...land.harvard.edu, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
	x86@...nel.org, shuahkhan@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-debug: New interfaces to debug dma mapping errors

On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 13:23 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 09:52:52AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 09:39 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > 
> > > > check_unmap():
> > > > 	This is an existing internal routines that checks for unmap errors,
> > > > 	changed to increment dma_unmap_errors for the current device, as well
> > > > 	as the dma_unmap_errors counter for the system, dma-debug api keeps
> > > > 	track of, when a device requests an invalid address to be unmapped.
> > > > 	Please note that this routine can no longer call dma_mapping_error(),
> > > > 	because of the newly added debug_dma_mapping_error() interface. Calling
> > > > 	dma_mapping_error() from this routine will decrement
> > > > 	dma_map_errors_not_checked counter incorrectly.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I like the direction of this patch. That said I am wondering why you
> > > choose to do it this way? Was there no way to have all of the logic within
> > > debug dma file, and within check_unmap?
> > 
> > > What is the extra complexity? Can you explain as if I was a newbie to debug DMA
> > > API - perhaps there is still some hope in doing it there?
> > > 
> > > > struct device eliminates the need for maintaining failed mappings in dma-debug
> > > > infrastructure and is cleaner and simpler without impacting the existing
> > > > dma-debug infrastructure.
> > > 
> > > Could you explain please why it would be more difficult to do it in the existing
> > > dma-debug infrastructure?
> > 
> > I started out with a goal to provide a debug infrastructure to track all
> > the cases where dma mapping errors go unchecked.
> > 
> > I could have gone the route to track system wide counts and not be
> > concerned about per device counts. In which case, it would be a sub-set
> > of the functionality in this pacth.  i.e debug_dma_map_page() increments
> > dma_map_errors and dma_map_errors_not_checked. The new interface
> > debug_dma_mapping_error() simply decrements dma_map_errors_not_checked.
> > 
> > check_unmap() can increment the third system wide counter,
> > dma_unmap_errors.
> > 
> > However, system wide counters are of limited use, per device counters
> > wil gine us the ability to identify the drivers that need fixing and
> > fix them and have a way to regression test old drivers and sanity check
> > the new in the future.
> > 
> > Having decided on per device counters, my first approach was looking
> > into enhancing dma-debug infrastructure and contain this logic within
> > that module by enhancing the existing dma_debug_entry to track these
> > errors. 
> > 
> > One issue with this approach is that the current dma-debug
> > infrastructure tracks only the successful mappings. Entries are added to
> > the dma_debug_entry able from mapping interfaces for good maps. This
> > table is hashed using the mapped address (dma_addr). When dma mapping
> > error is detected by the debug interfaces debug_dma_map_page() namely,
> > nothing gets added to the dma_debug_entry table.
> 
> The check for the violations you are trying to find is to find that
> during the life-time of 'map_page' -> 'unmap_page' that 'dma_mapping_error'
> has been called. Presumarily part of that are good maps?
> 
> So what would it take to keep that state for that scenario? Could you
> use the existing system of lookup?
> 
> For the scenario where the result of 'map_page' is invalid it seems
> that you would need to use a completely different hash key anyway, as:
> 
> extern dma_addr_t swiotlb_map_page(struct device *dev, struct page *page,
>                                    unsigned long offset, size_t size,
>                                    enum dma_data_direction dir,
>                                    struct dma_attrs *attrs);
> 
> on the input side you get 'struct device','struct page'... and that is it.
> The DMA API is responsible for providing you with the 'dma_addr' which
> is going to be zero or -1, or some valid DMA scratch address, depending on the IOMMU.
> 
> On the later invocation, so 'unmap_page', you have:
> 
> extern void swiotlb_unmap_page(struct device *hwdev, dma_addr_t dev_addr,
>                                size_t size, enum dma_data_direction dir,
>                                struct dma_attrs *attrs);
> 
> you are feed the 'dev_addr' that 'map_page' came up with (-1 or 0) and the
> 'struct device'.
> 
> Perhaps you could use just 'struct device' and 'dma_addr' and life with
> the possiblity of the device doing multiple of these map_page where it gets
> a invalid address and does nothing about it. If it does the 'dma_mapping_error'
> you could deduct the count of invalid DMA address?

Right. I could do that. Hoping I can find a way to get full coverage
still :)

> 
> 
> > 
> > Tracking failed mappings would require either changing the current table
> > usage to include failed maps and change the hash function to use some
> > other key instead of the mapped address. I didn't want to go that route.
> > One option I considered was to maintain device list with dma-debug
> > module and at that point adding fields to struct device sounded like one
> > way to go instead of adding another set of parallel data structures to
> > maintain the association between these counts and devices.
> > 
> > But from what I am hearing as feedback "changing struct device for this
> > purpose is not a desirable." :)
> 
> Yup.
> > 
> > I will go back and take a look at another approach to not disturb the
> > existing dma_debug_entry usage, still provide per device counts
> > contained within the dma-debug module. I have couple of ideas to pursue
> > further and see if they work.
> 
> OK. Would it help if we suggested some ideas or do you want to try to
> mull some of your ideas first?

Yeah. I will firm up my ideas a bit and summarize in a day or two. Would
like to hear your ideas as well at that time, so we can pick the one
that works the best.

-- Shuah



--
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