On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 07:56:56PM +0200, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> Hi Christoph,
> thanks for having a look at this!
>
> On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 15:41 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Yes, the iommu is an interesting case, and the current code is
> > wrong for that.
>
> Care to expand on this? I do get that checking dma_coherent_ok() on memory
> that'll later on be mapped into an iommu is kind of silly, although I think
> harmless in Amir's specific case, since devices have wide enough dma-ranges.
> Is
> there more to it?
I think the problem is that it can lead to not finding suitable memory.
>
> > Can you try the patch below? It contains a modified version of Nicolas'
> > patch to try CMA again for the expansion and a new (for now hackish) way to
> > not apply the addressability check for dma-iommu allocations.
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/dma/pool.c b/kernel/dma/pool.c
> > index 6bc74a2d51273e..ec5e525d2b9309 100644
> > --- a/kernel/dma/pool.c
> > +++ b/kernel/dma/pool.c
> > @@ -3,7 +3,9 @@
> > * Copyright (C) 2012 ARM Ltd.
> > * Copyright (C) 2020 Google LLC
> > */
> > +#include <linux/cma.h>
> > #include <linux/debugfs.h>
> > +#include <linux/dma-contiguous.h>
> > #include <linux/dma-direct.h>
> > #include <linux/dma-noncoherent.h>
> > #include <linux/init.h>
> > @@ -55,6 +57,31 @@ static void dma_atomic_pool_size_add(gfp_t gfp, size_t
> > size)
> > pool_size_kernel += size;
> > }
> >
> > +static bool cma_in_zone(gfp_t gfp)
> > +{
> > + phys_addr_t end;
> > + unsigned long size;
> > + struct cma *cma;
> > +
> > + cma = dev_get_cma_area(NULL);
> > + if (!cma)
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + size = cma_get_size(cma);
> > + if (!size)
> > + return false;
> > + end = cma_get_base(cma) - memblock_start_of_DRAM() + size - 1;
> > +
> > + /* CMA can't cross zone boundaries, see cma_activate_area() */
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ZONE_DMA) && (gfp & GFP_DMA) &&
> > + end <= DMA_BIT_MASK(zone_dma_bits))
> > + return true;
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ZONE_DMA32) && (gfp & GFP_DMA32) &&
> > + end <= DMA_BIT_MASK(32))
> > + return true;
> > + return true;
>
> IIUC this will always return true given a CMA is present. Which reverts to the
> previous behaviour (previous as in breaking some rpi4 setups), isn't it?
Was that really what broke the PI? I'll try to get the split out series
today, which might have a few more tweaks, and then we'll need to test it
both on these rpi4 setups and Amits phone.
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
