[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BYAPR21MB168802F691D3041C9B2F9F2DD72CA@BYAPR21MB1688.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2023 14:22:50 +0000
From: "Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: Petr Tesarik <petrtesarik@...weicloud.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
"moderated list:XEN HYPERVISOR ARM" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
"moderated list:ARM PORT" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:MIPS" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:XEN SWIOTLB SUBSYSTEM" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
"petr@...arici.cz" <petr@...arici.cz>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 4/7] swiotlb: if swiotlb is full, fall back to a
transient memory pool
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 1:07 AM
>
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 03:50:55AM +0000, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
> > From: Petr Tesarik <petrtesarik@...weicloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023
> 2:54 AM
> > >
> > > Try to allocate a transient memory pool if no suitable slots can be found,
> > > except when allocating from a restricted pool. The transient pool is just
> > > enough big for this one bounce buffer. It is inserted into a per-device
> > > list of transient memory pools, and it is freed again when the bounce
> > > buffer is unmapped.
> > >
> > > Transient memory pools are kept in an RCU list. A memory barrier is
> > > required after adding a new entry, because any address within a transient
> > > buffer must be immediately recognized as belonging to the SWIOTLB, even if
> > > it is passed to another CPU.
> > >
> > > Deletion does not require any synchronization beyond RCU ordering
> > > guarantees. After a buffer is unmapped, its physical addresses may no
> > > longer be passed to the DMA API, so the memory range of the corresponding
> > > stale entry in the RCU list never matches. If the memory range gets
> > > allocated again, then it happens only after a RCU quiescent state.
> > >
> > > Since bounce buffers can now be allocated from different pools, add a
> > > parameter to swiotlb_alloc_pool() to let the caller know which memory pool
> > > is used. Add swiotlb_find_pool() to find the memory pool corresponding to
> > > an address. This function is now also used by is_swiotlb_buffer(), because
> > > a simple boundary check is no longer sufficient.
> > >
> > > The logic in swiotlb_alloc_tlb() is taken from __dma_direct_alloc_pages(),
> > > simplified and enhanced to use coherent memory pools if needed.
> > >
> > > Note that this is not the most efficient way to provide a bounce buffer,
> > > but when a DMA buffer can't be mapped, something may (and will) actually
> > > break. At that point it is better to make an allocation, even if it may be
> > > an expensive operation.
> >
> > I continue to think about swiotlb memory management from the standpoint
> > of CoCo VMs that may be quite large with high network and storage loads.
> > These VMs are often running mission-critical workloads that can't tolerate
> > a bounce buffer allocation failure. To prevent such failures, the swiotlb
> > memory size must be overly large, which wastes memory.
>
> If "mission critical workloads" are in a vm that allowes overcommit and
> no control over other vms in that same system, then you have worse
> problems, sorry.
>
> Just don't do that.
>
No, the cases I'm concerned about don't involve memory overcommit.
CoCo VMs must use swiotlb bounce buffers to do DMA I/O. Current swiotlb
code in the Linux guest allocates a configurable, but fixed, amount of guest
memory at boot time for this purpose. But it's hard to know how much
swiotlb bounce buffer memory will be needed to handle peak I/O loads.
This patch set does dynamic allocation of swiotlb bounce buffer memory,
which can help avoid needing to configure an overly large fixed size at boot.
Michael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists