Message-ID: <1342831966.29855.6.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Sat, 21 Jul 2012 10:52:46 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	santil@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, anton@...ba.org, paulus@...ba.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@....ibm.com>
Subject: Re: ibmveth bug?

On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 15:41 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> Ping on this ... we've tripped the same issue on a different system, it
> would appear. Would appreciate if anyone can provide answers to the
> questions below.

Well, I haven't hit it but your description makes sense. Why not use
dma_alloc_coherent though ? Rather than kmalloc followed by map ?

At least on power we give you page alignment for these, so the problem
is solved magically :-) Another option is GFP + dma_map_page which is
roughly equivalent.

If you think it's a waste of space based on the queue size, then just
add an extra pointer, I wouldn't bother with a cache for something only
allocated when the driver initializes.

Cheers,
Ben.

> Thanks,
> Nish
> 
> On 15.05.2012 [10:01:41 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > Hi Santiago,
> > 
> > Are you still working on ibmveth?
> > 
> > I've found a very sporadic bug with ibmveth in some testing. PAPR
> > requires that:
> > 
> > "Validate the Buffer Descriptor of the receive queue buffer (I/O
> > addresses for entire buffer length starting at the spec- ified I/O
> > address are translated by the RTCE table, length is a multiple of 16
> > bytes, and alignment is on a 16 byte boundary) else H_Parameter."
> > 
> > but from what I can tell ibmveth.c is not enforcing this last condition:
> > 
> > 	adapter->rx_queue.queue_addr =
> > 		kmalloc(adapter->rx_queue.queue_len, GFP_KERNEL);
> > 
> > 	...
> > 
> > 	adapter->rx_queue.queue_dma = dma_map_single(dev,
> > 		adapter->rx_queue.queue_addr, adapter->rx_queue.queue_len,
> > 		DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL);
> > 
> > 	...
> > 
> > 	rxq_desc.fields.address = adapter->rx_queue.queue_dma;
> > 
> > 	...
> > 	
> > 
> > 	lpar_rc = ibmveth_register_logical_lan(adapter, rxq_desc,
> > 		mac_address);
> > 	netdev_err(netdev, "buffer TCE:0x%llx filter TCE:0x%llx rxq "
> > 	 	"desc:0x%llx MAC:0x%llx\n", adapter->buffer_list_dma,
> > 	 	adapter->filter_list_dma, rxq_desc.desc, mac_address);
> > 
> > And I got on one install attempt:
> > 
> > [ 39.978430] ibmveth 30000004: eth0: h_register_logical_lan failed with -4
> > [ 39.978449] ibmveth 30000004: eth0: buffer TCE:0x1000 filter TCE:0x10000 rxq desc:0x80006010000200a8 MAC:0x56754de8e904
> > 
> > rxq desc, as you can see is not 16byte aligned. kmalloc() only
> > guarantees 8-byte alignment (as does gcc, I think). Initially, I thought
> > we could just overallocate the queue_addr and ALIGN() down, but then we
> > would need to save the original kmalloc pointer in a new struct member
> > per rx_queue.
> > 
> > So a couple of questions:
> > 
> > 1) Is my analysis accurate? :)
> > 
> > 2) How gross would it be to save an extra pointer for every rx_queue?
> > 
> > 3) Based upon 2), is it better to just go ahead and create our own
> > kmem_cache (which gets an alignment specified)?
> > 
> > For 3), I started coding this, but couldn't find a clean place to
> > allocate the kmem_cache itself, as the size of each object depends on
> > the run-time characteristics (afaict), but needs to be specified at
> > cache creation time. Any insight you could provide would be great!
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Nish
> >  
> > -- 
> > Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@...ibm.com>
> > IBM Linux Technology Center
> 


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists