Re: [RFC PATCH] iommu/iova: Support limiting IOVA alignment

[Liam Mark <lmark@codeaurora.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 3686 bytes --]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020, Robin Murphy wrote:

> > > > > Add CONFIG_IOMMU_LIMIT_IOVA_ALIGNMENT to limit the alignment of
> > > > > IOVAs to some desired PAGE_SIZE order, specified by
> > > > > CONFIG_IOMMU_IOVA_ALIGNMENT. This helps reduce the impact of
> > > > > fragmentation caused by the current IOVA alignment scheme, and
> > > > > gives better IOVA space utilization.
> > > > 
> > > > Even if the general change did prove reasonable, this IOVA allocator is
> > > > not
> > > > owned by the DMA API, so entirely removing the option of strict
> > > > size-alignment feels a bit uncomfortable. Personally I'd replace the
> > > > bool
> > > > argument with an actual alignment value to at least hand the authority
> > > > out
> > > > to individual callers.
> > > > 
> > > > Furthermore, even in DMA API terms, is anyone really ever going to
> > > > bother
> > > > tuning that config? Since iommu-dma is supposed to be a transparent
> > > > layer,
> > > > arguably it shouldn't behave unnecessarily differently from CMA, so
> > > > simply
> > > > piggy-backing off CONFIG_CMA_ALIGNMENT would seem logical.
> > > 
> > > Agreed, reusing CONFIG_CMA_ALIGNMENT makes a lot of sense here as callers
> > > relying on natural alignment of DMA buffer allocations already have to
> > > deal with that limitation. We could fix it as an optional parameter at
> > > init time (init_iova_domain()), and have the DMA IOMMU implementation
> > > pass it in there.
> > > 
> > 
> > My concern with using CONFIG_CMA_ALIGNMENT alignment is that for us this
> > would either involve further fragmenting our CMA regions (moving our CMA
> > max alignment from 1MB to max 2MB) or losing so of our 2MB IOVA block
> > mappings (changing our IOVA max alignment form 2MB to 1MB).
> > 
> > At least for us CMA allocations are often not DMA mapped into stage 1 page
> > tables so moving the CMA max alignment to 2MB in our case would, I think,
> > only provide the disadvantage of having to increase the size our CMA
> > regions to accommodate this large alignment (which isn’t optimal for
> > memory utilization since CMA regions can't satisfy unmovable page
> > allocations).
> > 
> > As an alternative would it be possible for the dma-iommu layer to use the
> > size of the allocation and the domain pgsize_bitmap field to pick a max
> > IOVA alignment, which it can pass in for that IOVA allocation, which will
> > maximize block mappings but not waste IOVA space?
> 
> Given that we already have DMA_ATTR_ALOC_SINGLE_PAGES for video drivers and
> suchlike that know enough to know they want "large buffer" allocation
> behaviour, would it suffice to have a similar attribute that says "I'm not too
> fussed about alignment"? That way there's no visible change for anyone who
> doesn't opt in and might be relying on the existing behaviour, intentionally
> or otherwise.
> 
> Then if necessary, the implementation can consider both flags together to
> decide whether to try to round down to the next block size or just shove it in
> anywhere.
> 

This should work for us.
My only concern is that many of our users would be using DMA-Buf memory, 
so DMA mapping would be done using dma_buf_map_attachment which I believe 
still doesn't support specifying any DMA attributes. 

I had previously tried to get support added upstream but wasn't 
successful.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/18/826
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/18/827

But perhaps this new attribute will provide enough justification for DMA 
attributes (in some form, either explicitly or via flags) to be supported 
via dma_buf_map_attachment.

Liam

Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 156 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu