Message-ID: <9d03184a-e82a-c888-4007-bbfbbd877748@oracle.com>
Date:   Sun, 9 Dec 2018 09:37:29 +0800
From:   Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@...cle.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, Joe Jin <joe.jin@...cle.com>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     konrad.wilk@...cle.com, hch@....de, m.szyprowski@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/1] swiotlb: add debugfs to track swiotlb buffer
 usage

Hi Robin,

On 12/07/2018 09:17 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 07/12/2018 05:49, Dongli Zhang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/07/2018 12:12 AM, Joe Jin wrote:
>>> Hi Dongli,
>>>
>>> Maybe move d_swiotlb_usage declare into swiotlb_create_debugfs():
>>
>> I assume the call of swiotlb_tbl_map_single() might be frequent in some
>> situations, e.g., when 'swiotlb=force'.
>>
>> That's why I declare the d_swiotlb_usage out of any functions and use "if
>> (unlikely(!d_swiotlb_usage))".
>>
>> I think "if (unlikely(!d_swiotlb_usage))" incur less performance overhead than
>> calling swiotlb_create_debugfs() every time to confirm if debugfs is created. I
>> would declare d_swiotlb_usage statically inside swiotlb_create_debugfs() if the
>> performance overhead is acceptable (it is trivial indeed).
>>
>>
>> That is the reason I tag the patch with RFC because I am not sure if the
>> on-demand creation of debugfs is fine with maintainers/reviewers. If swiotlb
>> pages are never allocated, we would not be able to see the debugfs entry.
>>
>> I would prefer to limit the modification within swiotlb and to not taint any
>> other files.
>>
>> The drawback is there is no place to create or delete the debugfs entry because
>> swiotlb buffer could be initialized and uninitialized at very early stage.
> 
> Couldn't you just do it from an initcall? All you really need to care about is
> ordering after debugfs_init(), which is easy. If SWIOTLB initialisation does end
> up being skipped at any point, nobody's going to mind if debugfs still has an
> entry saying io_tlb_nslabs == 0 (in fact, that's arguably useful in itself as
> positive confirmation that the system is not using SWIOTLB).

I will put the creation of debugfs entry in late_initcall() which is the last
initcall.

> 
>>> void swiotlb_create_debugfs(void)
>>> {
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
>>>     static struct dentry *d_swiotlb_usage = NULL;
>>>
>>>     if (d_swiotlb_usage)
>>>         return;
>>>
>>>     d_swiotlb_usage = debugfs_create_dir("swiotlb", NULL);
>>>
>>>     if (!d_swiotlb_usage)
>>>         return;
>>>
>>>     debugfs_create_file("usage", 0600, d_swiotlb_usage,
>>>                 NULL, &swiotlb_usage_fops);
> 
> Maybe expose io_tlb_nslabs and io_tlb_used as separate entries? Then you could
> just use debugfs_create_ulong() to keep things really simple. That would also
> make the interface more consistent with dma-debug, which would be nice given how
> closely-related they are.

I will switch to debugfs_create_ulong() and that will also reduce the LOC.

Thank you very much!

Dongli Zhang



> 
> Robin.
> 
>>> #endif
>>> }
>>>
>>> And for io_tlb_used, possible add a check at the begin of
>>> swiotlb_tbl_map_single(),
>>> if there were not any free slots or not enough slots, return fail directly?
>>
>> This would optimize the slots allocation path. I will follow this in next
>> version after I got more suggestions and confirmations from maintainers.
>>
>>
>> Thank you very much!
>>
>> Dongli Zhang
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Joe
>>> On 12/5/18 7:59 PM, Dongli Zhang wrote:
>>>> The device driver will not be able to do dma operations once swiotlb buffer
>>>> is full, either because the driver is using so many IO TLB blocks inflight,
>>>> or because there is memory leak issue in device driver. To export the
>>>> swiotlb buffer usage via debugfs would help the user estimate the size of
>>>> swiotlb buffer to pre-allocate or analyze device driver memory leak issue.
>>>>
>>>> As the swiotlb can be initialized at very early stage when debugfs cannot
>>>> register successfully, this patch creates the debugfs entry on demand.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@...cle.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   kernel/dma/swiotlb.c | 57
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>   1 file changed, 57 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
>>>> index 045930e..d3c8aa4 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
>>>> @@ -35,6 +35,9 @@
>>>>   #include <linux/scatterlist.h>
>>>>   #include <linux/mem_encrypt.h>
>>>>   #include <linux/set_memory.h>
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
>>>> +#include <linux/debugfs.h>
>>>> +#endif
>>>>     #include <asm/io.h>
>>>>   #include <asm/dma.h>
>>>> @@ -73,6 +76,13 @@ static phys_addr_t io_tlb_start, io_tlb_end;
>>>>    */
>>>>   static unsigned long io_tlb_nslabs;
>>>>   +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * The number of used IO TLB block
>>>> + */
>>>> +static unsigned long io_tlb_used;
>>>> +#endif
>>>> +
>>>>   /*
>>>>    * This is a free list describing the number of free entries available from
>>>>    * each index
>>>> @@ -100,6 +110,41 @@ static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(io_tlb_lock);
>>>>     static int late_alloc;
>>>>   +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
>>>> +
>>>> +static struct dentry *d_swiotlb_usage;
>>>> +
>>>> +static int swiotlb_usage_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    seq_printf(m, "%lu\n%lu\n", io_tlb_used, );
>>>> +    return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int swiotlb_usage_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    return single_open(filp, swiotlb_usage_show, NULL);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static const struct file_operations swiotlb_usage_fops = {
>>>> +    .open           = swiotlb_usage_open,
>>>> +    .read           = seq_read,
>>>> +    .llseek         = seq_lseek,
>>>> +    .release        = single_release,
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +void swiotlb_create_debugfs(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    d_swiotlb_usage = debugfs_create_dir("swiotlb", NULL);
>>>> +
>>>> +    if (!d_swiotlb_usage)
>>>> +        return;
>>>> +
>>>> +    debugfs_create_file("usage", 0600, d_swiotlb_usage,
>>>> +                NULL, &swiotlb_usage_fops);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +#endif
>>>> +
>>>>   static int __init
>>>>   setup_io_tlb_npages(char *str)
>>>>   {
>>>> @@ -449,6 +494,11 @@ phys_addr_t swiotlb_tbl_map_single(struct device *hwdev,
>>>>           pr_warn_once("%s is active and system is using DMA bounce buffers\n",
>>>>                    sme_active() ? "SME" : "SEV");
>>>>   +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
>>>> +    if (unlikely(!d_swiotlb_usage))
>>>> +        swiotlb_create_debugfs();
>>>> +#endif
>>>> +
>>>>       mask = dma_get_seg_boundary(hwdev);
>>>>         tbl_dma_addr &= mask;
>>>> @@ -528,6 +578,9 @@ phys_addr_t swiotlb_tbl_map_single(struct device *hwdev,
>>>>           dev_warn(hwdev, "swiotlb buffer is full (sz: %zd bytes)\n", size);
>>>>       return SWIOTLB_MAP_ERROR;
>>>>   found:
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
>>>> +    io_tlb_used += nslots;
>>>> +#endif
>>>>       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&io_tlb_lock, flags);
>>>>         /*
>>>> @@ -588,6 +641,10 @@ void swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single(struct device *hwdev,
>>>> phys_addr_t tlb_addr,
>>>>            */
>>>>           for (i = index - 1; (OFFSET(i, IO_TLB_SEGSIZE) != IO_TLB_SEGSIZE
>>>> -1) && io_tlb_list[i]; i--)
>>>>               io_tlb_list[i] = ++count;
>>>> +
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
>>>> +        io_tlb_used -= nslots;
>>>> +#endif
>>>>       }
>>>>       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&io_tlb_lock, flags);
>>>>   }
>>>>
>>>
>>>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists