All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] arm64 fix for 5.14
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 17:56:50 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YS5fUqQYWf0AKLgD@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wg=+P1+HQXhrszxN_BgWtLc-=dWiT61KzogcJU3hnLrtQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 10:16:27AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 10:10 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> > They CCed me on their earlier discussion, but I did not catch up on it
> > until you responded to the pull request  If I understood it correct it
> > was about a platform device mapping a MMIO region (like a PCI bar),
> > but something about section alignment cause pfn_valid to mistrigger.
> 
> Yeah, so I can easily see the maxpfn numbers can easily end up being
> rounded up to a whole memory section etc.
> 
> I think my suggested solution should JustWork(tm) - exactly because if
> the area is then in that "this pfn is valid" area, it will
> double-check the actual underlying page.
> 
> That said, I think x86 avoids the problem another way - by just making
> sure max_pfn is exact. That works too, as long as there are no holes
> in the RAM map that might be used for PCI BAR's.
> 
> So I think arm could fix it that way too, depending on their memory layout.

The suggested solution in the original thread was to change the generic
DMA code to use memblock_is_memory() instead of pfn_valid():

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/b720e7c8-ca44-0a25-480b-05bf49d03c35@redhat.com/

Given how late we discovered this in the -rc cycle, the decision was to
revert the pfn_valid() patch. We'll re-instate it at some point but
someone needs to sanity check the other pfn_valid() call sites and the
expected semantics.

-- 
Catalin

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] arm64 fix for 5.14
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 17:56:50 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YS5fUqQYWf0AKLgD@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wg=+P1+HQXhrszxN_BgWtLc-=dWiT61KzogcJU3hnLrtQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 10:16:27AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 10:10 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> > They CCed me on their earlier discussion, but I did not catch up on it
> > until you responded to the pull request  If I understood it correct it
> > was about a platform device mapping a MMIO region (like a PCI bar),
> > but something about section alignment cause pfn_valid to mistrigger.
> 
> Yeah, so I can easily see the maxpfn numbers can easily end up being
> rounded up to a whole memory section etc.
> 
> I think my suggested solution should JustWork(tm) - exactly because if
> the area is then in that "this pfn is valid" area, it will
> double-check the actual underlying page.
> 
> That said, I think x86 avoids the problem another way - by just making
> sure max_pfn is exact. That works too, as long as there are no holes
> in the RAM map that might be used for PCI BAR's.
> 
> So I think arm could fix it that way too, depending on their memory layout.

The suggested solution in the original thread was to change the generic
DMA code to use memblock_is_memory() instead of pfn_valid():

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/b720e7c8-ca44-0a25-480b-05bf49d03c35@redhat.com/

Given how late we discovered this in the -rc cycle, the decision was to
revert the pfn_valid() patch. We'll re-instate it at some point but
someone needs to sanity check the other pfn_valid() call sites and the
expected semantics.

-- 
Catalin

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-08-31 16:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-26 13:17 [GIT PULL] arm64 fix for 5.14 Will Deacon
2021-08-26 13:17 ` Will Deacon
2021-08-26 18:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-08-26 18:41   ` Linus Torvalds
2021-08-27  7:40   ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-08-27  7:40     ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-08-27 17:03     ` Linus Torvalds
2021-08-27 17:03       ` Linus Torvalds
2021-08-27 17:10       ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-08-27 17:10         ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-08-27 17:16         ` Linus Torvalds
2021-08-27 17:16           ` Linus Torvalds
2021-08-31 13:31           ` Will Deacon
2021-08-31 13:31             ` Will Deacon
2021-08-31 19:16             ` David Hildenbrand
2021-08-31 19:16               ` David Hildenbrand
2021-08-31 16:56           ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2021-08-31 16:56             ` Catalin Marinas
2021-08-26 18:52 ` pr-tracker-bot
2021-08-26 18:52   ` pr-tracker-bot

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YS5fUqQYWf0AKLgD@arm.com \
    --to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=kernel-team@android.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.