[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2023042630-amends-speech-7db2@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 14:53:52 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz>
Cc: Petr Tesarik <petrtesarik@...weicloud.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>,
Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@....com>,
"Steven Rostedt (Google)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
Ondrej Zary <linux@...y.sk>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
Petr Tesarik <petr.tesarik.ext@...wei.com>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Won Chung <wonchung@...gle.com>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:DRM DRIVERS" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"open list:DMA MAPPING HELPERS" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Allow dynamic allocation of software IO TLB
bounce buffers
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 02:44:39PM +0200, Petr Tesařík wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 14:26:36 +0200
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 02:15:20PM +0200, Petr Tesařík wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:03:52 +0200
> > > Petr Tesarik <petrtesarik@...weicloud.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Petr Tesarik <petr.tesarik.ext@...wei.com>
> > > >
> > > > The goal of my work is to provide more flexibility in the sizing of
> > > > SWIOTLB.
> > > >
> > > > The software IO TLB was designed with these assumptions:
> > > >
> > > > 1. It would not be used much, especially on 64-bit systems.
> > > > 2. A small fixed memory area (64 MiB by default) is sufficient to
> > > > handle the few cases which require a bounce buffer.
> > > > 3. 64 MiB is little enough that it has no impact on the rest of the
> > > > system.
> > > >
> > > > First, if SEV is active, all DMA must be done through shared
> > > > unencrypted pages, and SWIOTLB is used to make this happen without
> > > > changing device drivers. The software IO TLB size is increased to
> > > > 6% of total memory in sev_setup_arch(), but that is more of an
> > > > approximation. The actual requirements may vary depending on the
> > > > amount of I/O and which drivers are used. These factors may not be
> > > > know at boot time, i.e. when SWIOTLB is allocated.
> > > >
> > > > Second, other colleagues have noticed that they can reliably get
> > > > rid of occasional OOM kills on an Arm embedded device by reducing
> > > > the SWIOTLB size. This can be achieved with a kernel parameter, but
> > > > determining the right value puts additional burden on pre-release
> > > > testing, which could be avoided if SWIOTLB is allocated small and
> > > > grows only when necessary.
> > >
> > > Now that merging into 6.4 has begun, what about this patch series? I'm
> > > eager to get some feedback (positive or negative) and respin the next
> > > version.
> >
> > It's the merge window, we can't add new things that haven't been in
> > linux-next already.
>
> This is understood. I'm not asking for immediate inclusion.
>
> > Please resubmit it after -rc1 is out.
>
> If you can believe that rebasing to -rc1 will be enough, then I will
> also try to believe I'm lucky. ;-)
>
> The kind of feedback I really want to get is e.g. about the extra
> per-device DMA-specific fields. If they cannot be added to struct
> device, then I'd rather start discussing an interim solution, because
> getting all existing DMA fields out of that struct will take a lot of
> time...
I thought the goal was to get them out of the device and into the bus
instead right? Or was it the other way around? I can't remember
anymore, sorry...
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists