Message-ID: <CAHbf0-HnctoNN3AQoCeCfd-d7ppKBhWJHD+EbfmbfeTkbS1jqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 May 2023 11:29:21 +0100
From:   Mike Lothian <mike@...eburn.co.uk>
To:     Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz>
Cc:     Petr Tesarik <petrtesarik@...weicloud.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "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>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
        Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Allow dynamic allocation of software IO TLB bounce buffers

Hi

I've not had any issues since using this, but I imagine most people
won't know how to set swiotlb=dynamic if they start seeing this (when
it lands)

Any clue as to why this broke last cycle?

Thanks

Mike

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 at 10:07, Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 09:53:38 +0100
> Mike Lothian <mike@...eburn.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 at 11:05, 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.
> > >
> > > Changes from v1-devel-v7:
> > > - Add comments to acquire/release barriers
> > > - Fix whitespace issues reported by checkpatch.pl
> > >
> > > Changes from v1-devel-v6:
> > > - Provide long description of functions
> > > - Fix kernel-doc (Returns: to Return:)
> > > - Rename __lookup_dyn_slot() to lookup_dyn_slot_locked()
> > >
> > > Changes from RFC:
> > > - Track dynamic buffers per device instead of per swiotlb
> > > - Use a linked list instead of a maple tree
> > > - Move initialization of swiotlb fields of struct device to a
> > >   helper function
> > > - Rename __lookup_dyn_slot() to lookup_dyn_slot_locked()
> > > - Introduce per-device flag if dynamic buffers are in use
> > > - Add one more user of DMA_ATTR_MAY_SLEEP
> > > - Add kernel-doc comments for new (and some old) code
> > > - Properly escape '*' in dma-attributes.rst
> > >
> > > Petr Tesarik (7):
> > >   swiotlb: Use a helper to initialize swiotlb fields in struct device
> > >   swiotlb: Move code around in preparation for dynamic bounce buffers
> > >   dma-mapping: introduce the DMA_ATTR_MAY_SLEEP attribute
> > >   swiotlb: Dynamically allocated bounce buffers
> > >   swiotlb: Add a boot option to enable dynamic bounce buffers
> > >   drm: Use DMA_ATTR_MAY_SLEEP from process context
> > >   swiotlb: per-device flag if there are dynamically allocated buffers
> > >
> > >  .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt         |   6 +-
> > >  Documentation/core-api/dma-attributes.rst     |  10 +
> > >  drivers/base/core.c                           |   4 +-
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c        |   2 +-
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_prime.c                   |   2 +-
> > >  include/linux/device.h                        |  12 +
> > >  include/linux/dma-mapping.h                   |   6 +
> > >  include/linux/swiotlb.h                       |  54 ++-
> > >  kernel/dma/swiotlb.c                          | 382 ++++++++++++++++--
> > >  9 files changed, 443 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.25.1
> > >
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > Is this a potential fix for
> > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217310 where I'm manually
> > setting bigger buffers to keep my wifi working?
>
> Yes. With these patches applied, your system should run just fine with
> swiotlb=dynamic. However, keep in mind that this implementation adds a
> bit of overhead. In short, it trades a bit of performance for not
> having to figure out the optimal swiotlb size at boot time.
>
> Petr T

Powered by blists - more mailing lists