[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d8a1cbf4-a521-78ec-1560-28d855e0913e@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:52:31 +0000
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Maxime Bizon <mbizon@...ebox.fr>
Cc: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...e.dk>,
Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Olha Cherevyk <olha.cherevyk@...il.com>,
iommu <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] Recent swiotlb DMA_FROM_DEVICE fixes break
ath9k-based AP
On 2022-03-24 16:31, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 05:29:12PM +0100, Maxime Bizon wrote:
>>> I'm looking into this; but in the interest of a speedy resolution of
>>> the regression I would be in favour of merging that partial revert
>>> and reinstating it if/when we identify (and fix) any bugs in ath9k :)
>>
>> This looks fishy:
>>
>> ath9k/recv.c
>>
>> /* We will now give hardware our shiny new allocated skb */
>> new_buf_addr = dma_map_single(sc->dev, requeue_skb->data,
>> common->rx_bufsize, dma_type);
>> if (unlikely(dma_mapping_error(sc->dev, new_buf_addr))) {
>> dev_kfree_skb_any(requeue_skb);
>> goto requeue_drop_frag;
>> }
>>
>> /* Unmap the frame */
>> dma_unmap_single(sc->dev, bf->bf_buf_addr,
>> common->rx_bufsize, dma_type);
>>
>> bf->bf_mpdu = requeue_skb;
>> bf->bf_buf_addr = new_buf_addr;
>
> Creating a new mapping for the same buffer before unmapping the
> previous one does looks rather bogus. But it does not fit the
> pattern where revering the sync_single changes make the driver
> work again.
OK, you made me look :)
Now that it's obvious what to look for, I can only conclude that during
the stanza in ath_edma_get_buffers(), the device is still writing to the
buffer while ownership has been transferred to the CPU, and whatever got
written while ath9k_hw_process_rxdesc_edma() was running then gets wiped
out by the subsequent sync_for_device, which currently resets the
SWIOTLB slot to the state that sync_for_cpu copied out. By the letter of
the DMA API that's not allowed, but on the other hand I'm not sure if we
even have a good idiom for "I can't tell if the device has finished with
this buffer or not unless I look at it" :/
Robin.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists