linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] swiotlb: Add swiotlb=off to disable SWIOTLB

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <f0940ea7-79f6-af57-aa7d-d121abb99012@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:43:09 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     opendmb@...il.com, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:SWIOTLB SUBSYSTEM" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] swiotlb: Add swiotlb=off to disable SWIOTLB



On 3/18/2021 12:34 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2021-03-18 19:22, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/18/2021 12:18 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>> It may be useful to disable the SWIOTLB completely for testing or when a
>>> platform is known not to have any DRAM addressing limitations what so
>>> ever.
> 
> Isn't that what "swiotlb=noforce" is for? If you're confident that we've
> really ironed out *all* the awkward corners that used to blow up if
> various internal bits were left uninitialised, then it would make sense
> to just tweak the implementation of what we already have.

swiotlb=noforce does prevent dma_direct_map_page() from resorting to the
swiotlb, however what I am also after is reclaiming these 64MB of
default SWIOTLB bounce buffering memory because my systems run with
large amounts of reserved memory into ZONE_MOVABLE and everything in
ZONE_NORMAL is precious at that point.

> 
> I wouldn't necessarily disagree with adding "off" as an additional alias
> for "noforce", though, since it does come across as a bit wacky for
> general use.
> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
>>
>> Christoph, in addition to this change, how would you feel if we
>> qualified the swiotlb_init() in arch/arm/mm/init.c with a:
>>
>>
>> if (memblock_end_of_DRAM() >= SZ_4G)
>>     swiotlb_init(1)
> 
> Modulo "swiotlb=force", of course ;)

Indeed, we would need to handle that case as well. Does it sound
reasonable to do that to you as well?
-- 
Florian