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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <a8a05321-3fd0-d1c4-9d76-ec2e79e310ec@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Mar 2021 14:31:15 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, opendmb@...il.com,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "open list:SWIOTLB SUBSYSTEM" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] swiotlb: Add swiotlb=off to disable SWIOTLB



On 3/18/2021 12:53 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2021-03-18 19:43, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
> 
> It also forces io_tlb_nslabs to the minimum, so it should be claiming
> considerably less than 64MB. IIRC the original proposal *did* skip
> initialisation completely, but that turned up the aforementioned issues.

AFAICT in that case we will have iotlb_n_slabs will set to 1, which will
still make us allocate io_tlb_n_slabs << IO_TLB_SHIFT bytes in
swiotlb_init(), which still gives us 64MB.

> 
>>> 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?
> 
> I wouldn't like it done to me personally, but for arm64, observe what
> mem_init() in arch/arm64/mm/init.c already does.
> 
> Robin.

-- 
Florian