From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 13:32:05 +0000 Subject: ask for help about swiotlb buffer is full In-Reply-To: <54D209FD.40100@huawei.com> References: <54CB5820.9020102@huawei.com> <54CB5AA4.7050705@huawei.com> <20150130115915.GB27542@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <54CC5346.5070402@huawei.com> <20150202182435.GH22661@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <54D209FD.40100@huawei.com> Message-ID: <20150204133205.GC26006@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 12:01:01PM +0000, Kefeng Wang wrote: > On 2015-02-03 2:24, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 04:00:06AM +0000, Kefeng Wang wrote: > >> On 2015-01-30 19:59, Catalin Marinas wrote: > [...] > >>> > >> > >> 4kb page, use Make ARCH=arm64 defconfig in v3.19 to generate config. > >> > >> [ 0.678293] software IO TLB [mem 0x7e800000-0x7ec00000] (4MB) mapped at [ffffffc07e800000-ffffffc07ebfffff] > >> [ 0.686991] DMA: preallocated 256 KiB pool for atomic allocations > > > > Was the swiotlb buffer size the same in the 3.16 kernel? The only thing > > I recall adding was the atomic pool allocations but these are only for > > non-coherent DMA ops and only for dma_alloc/free. I assume, in the case > > of SATA, the failure is on the dma_map_sg() path. > > Swiotlb buffer size is both 4M in v3.16 and v3.19-rc4, and the failure is > on the dma_map_sg() -> swiotlb_map_sg_attrs. > > > Maybe with a 3.19 kernel you get more than 4MB swiotlb buffers used at a > > time with your tests; can you try increasing this via a kernel command > > like to, let's say, 8MB? If I got my calculations correctly (an IO TLB > > slab is 1 << 11): > > > > swiotlb=4096 > > > > If it still runs out with bigger buffers, we may need to look into > > potential leaks. > > The buddy allocator can only support 4M contiguous physical memory, so it's > useless to increase swiotlb buffer. You could hack arch/arm64/Kconfig to set a higher CONFIG_FORCE_MAX_ZONEORDER as a test. Depending on the test result, we can look for an alternative solution. -- Catalin