On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 15:10:43 +0200
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schae...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2021 14:52:56 +0200
> Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schae...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:37:33 +0200
> > Karsten Graul <kgr...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 14/09/2021 17:45, Ioana Ciornei wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 10:33:26PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> > > >> +DPAA2, netdev maintainers
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> On 5/18/21 7:54 AM, Hamza Mahfooz wrote:
> > > >>> Since, overlapping mappings are not supported by the DMA API we should
> > > >>> report an error if active_cacheline_insert returns -EEXIST.
> > > >>
> > > >> It seems this patch found a victim. I was trying to run iperf3 on a
> > > >> honeycomb (5.14.0, fedora 35) and the console is blasting this error
> > > >> message
> > > >> at 100% cpu. So, I changed it to a WARN_ONCE() to get the call trace,
> > > >> which
> > > >> is attached below.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > These frags are allocated by the stack, transformed into a scatterlist
> > > > by skb_to_sgvec and then DMA mapped with dma_map_sg. It was not the
> > > > dpaa2-eth's decision to use two fragments from the same page (that will
> > > > also end un in the same cacheline) in two different in-flight skbs.
> > > >
> > > > Is this behavior normal?
> > > >
> > >
> > > We see the same problem here and it started with 5.15-rc2 in our nightly
> > > CI runs.
> > > The CI has panic_on_warn enabled so we see the panic every day now.
> >
> > Adding a WARN for a case that be detected false-positive seems not
> > acceptable, exactly for this reason (kernel panic on unaffected
> > systems).
> >
> > So I guess it boils down to the question if the behavior that Ioana
> > described is legit behavior, on a system that is dma coherent. We
> > are apparently hitting the same scenario, although it could not yet be
> > reproduced with debug printks for some reason.
> >
> > If the answer is yes, than please remove at lease the WARN, so that
> > it will not make systems crash that behave valid, and have
> > panic_on_warn set. Even a normal printk feels wrong to me in that
> > case, it really sounds rather like you want to fix / better refine
> > the overlap check, if you want to report anything here.
>
> Dan, Christoph, any opinion?
>
> So far it all looks a lot like a false positive, so could you please
> see that those patches get reverted? I do wonder a bit why this is
> not an issue for others, we surely cannot be the only ones running
> CI with panic_on_warn.
For reference, we are talking about these commits:
2b4bbc6231d7 ("dma-debug: report -EEXIST errors in add_dma_entry")
510e1a724ab1 ("dma-debug: prevent an error message from causing runtime
problems")
The latter introduced the WARN (through err_printk usage), and should
be reverted if it can be false-positive, but both seem wrong in that
case.
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
