From: Sagi Grimberg <sagigrim@gmail.com>
To: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>, leon@kernel.org
Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/24] mlx4-ib: Use coherent memory for priv pages
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 12:58:59 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57666CE3.3070803@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D23496A-FE01-4693-B125-82CD03B8F2D4@oracle.com>
>> In mlx5 system, we always added 2048 bytes to such allocations, for
>> reasons unknown to me. And it doesn't seem as a conservative approach
>> either.
>
> The mlx5 approach is much better than allocating a whole
> page, when you consider platforms with 64KB pages.
>
> A 1MB payload (for NFS) on such a platform comprises just
> 16 pages. So xprtrdma will allocate MRs with support for
> 16 pages. That's a priv pages array of 128 bytes, and you
> just put it in a 64KB page all by itself.
>
> So maybe adding 2048 bytes is not optimal either. But I
> think sticking with kmalloc here is a more optimal choice.
Again, the 2K constraint is not coming from any sort of dma mapping
alignment consideration, it comes from the _device_ limitation requiring
the translation vector to be aligned to 2K.
>>>> Also, I don't see how that solves the issue, I'm not sure I even
>>>> understand the issue. Do you? Were you able to reproduce it?
>>>
>>> The issue is that dma_map_single() does not seem to DMA map
>>> portions of a memory region that are past the end of the first
>>> page of that region. Maybe that's a bug?
>>
>> No, I didn't find support for that. Function dma_map_single expects
>> contiguous memory aligned to cache line, there is no limitation to be
>> page bounded.
>
> There certainly isn't, but that doesn't mean there can't
> be a bug somewhere ;-) and maybe not in dma_map_single.
> It could be that the "array on one page only" limitation
> is somewhere else in the mlx4 driver, or even in the HCA
> firmware.
I'm starting to think this is the case. Leon, I think it's time
to get the FW/HW guys involved...
>> I disagree, kmalloc with supplied flags will return contiguous memory
>> which is enough for dma_map_single. It is cache line alignment.
>
> The reason I find this hard to believe is that there is
> no end alignment guarantee at all in this code, but it
> works without issue when SLUB debugging is not enabled.
>
> xprtrdma allocates 256 elements in this array on x86.
> The code makes the array start on an 0x40 byte boundary.
> I'm pretty sure that means the end of that array will
> also be on at least an 0x40 byte boundary, and thus
> aligned to the DMA cacheline, whether or not SLUB
> debugging is enabled.
>
> Notice that in the current code, if the consumer requests
> an odd number of SGs, that array can't possibly end on
> an alignment boundary. But we've never had a complaint.
>
> SLUB debugging changes the alignment of lots of things,
> but mlx4_alloc_priv_pages is the only breakage that has
> been reported.
I tend to agree, I even have a feeling that this won't happen
on mlx5.
> DMA-API.txt says:
>
>> [T]he mapped region must begin exactly on a cache line
>> boundary and end exactly on one (to prevent two separately
>> mapped regions from sharing a single cache line)
>
> The way I read this, cacheline alignment shouldn't be
> an issue at all, as long as DMA cachelines aren't
> shared between mappings.
>
> If I simply increase the memory allocation size a little
> and ensure the end of the mapping is aligned, that should
> be enough to prevent DMA cacheline sharing with another
> memory allocation on the same page. But I still see Local
> Protection Errors when SLUB debugging is enabled, on my
> system (with patches to allocate more pages per MR).
>
> I'm not convinced this has anything to do with DMA
> cacheline alignment. The reason your patch fixes this
> issue is because it keeps the entire array on one page.
I share this feeling, I wrote several times that I don't understand
how this patch solves the issue and I would appreciate if someone
can explain it to me (preferably with evidence).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-19 9:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-15 3:15 [PATCH v2 00/24] NFS/RDMA client patches proposed for v4.8 Chuck Lever
2016-06-15 3:15 ` [PATCH v2 01/24] mlx4-ib: Use coherent memory for priv pages Chuck Lever
2016-06-15 4:28 ` Leon Romanovsky
2016-06-15 16:40 ` Chuck Lever
2016-06-16 14:35 ` Leon Romanovsky
2016-06-16 21:10 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-06-16 21:58 ` Chuck Lever
2016-06-17 9:20 ` Leon Romanovsky
2016-06-17 19:55 ` Chuck Lever
2016-06-18 10:56 ` Leon Romanovsky
2016-06-18 20:08 ` Chuck Lever
2016-06-19 10:04 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-06-19 19:38 ` Or Gerlitz
2016-06-19 19:43 ` Or Gerlitz
2016-06-19 20:02 ` Chuck Lever
2016-06-20 5:44 ` Leon Romanovsky
2016-06-20 6:34 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-06-20 7:01 ` Leon Romanovsky
2016-06-20 8:35 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-06-20 13:41 ` Yishai Hadas
2016-06-21 13:56 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-06-21 14:35 ` Laurence Oberman
2016-06-19 9:58 ` Sagi Grimberg [this message]
2016-06-19 9:48 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-06-17 9:05 ` Leon Romanovsky
2016-06-19 7:05 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-06-15 3:15 ` [PATCH v2 02/24] xprtrdma: Remove FMRs from the unmap list after unmapping Chuck Lever
2016-06-15 3:15 ` [PATCH v2 03/24] xprtrdma: Create common scatterlist fields in rpcrdma_mw Chuck Lever
2016-06-15 3:15 ` [PATCH v2 04/24] xprtrdma: Move init and release helpers Chuck Lever
2016-06-15 3:15 ` [PATCH v2 05/24] xprtrdma: Rename fields in rpcrdma_fmr Chuck Lever
2016-06-15 3:16 ` [PATCH v2 06/24] xprtrdma: Use scatterlist for DMA mapping and unmapping under FMR Chuck Lever
2016-06-15 3:16 ` [PATCH v2 07/24] xprtrdma: Refactor MR recovery work queues Chuck Lever
2016-06-15 3:16 ` [PATCH v2 08/24] xprtrdma: Do not leak an MW during a DMA map failure Chuck Lever
2016-06-15 3:16 ` [PATCH v2 09/24] xprtrdma: Remove ALLPHYSICAL memory registration mode Chuck Lever
2016-06-15 3:16 ` [PATCH v2 10/24] xprtrdma: Remove rpcrdma_map_one() and friends Chuck Lever
2016-06-15 3:16 ` [PATCH v2 11/24] xprtrdma: Reply buffer exhaustion can be catastrophic Chuck Lever
2016-06-15 3:16 ` [PATCH v2 12/24] xprtrdma: Honor ->send_request API contract Chuck Lever
2016-06-15 3:17 ` [PATCH v2 13/24] xprtrdma: Chunk list encoders must not return zero Chuck Lever
2016-06-15 3:17 ` [PATCH v2 14/24] xprtrdma: Allocate MRs on demand Chuck Lever
2016-06-15 3:17 ` [PATCH v2 15/24] xprtrdma: Release orphaned MRs immediately Chuck Lever
2016-06-15 3:17 ` [PATCH v2 16/24] xprtrdma: Place registered MWs on a per-req list Chuck Lever
2016-06-15 3:17 ` [PATCH v2 17/24] xprtrdma: Chunk list encoders no longer share one rl_segments array Chuck Lever
2016-06-15 3:17 ` [PATCH v2 18/24] xprtrdma: rpcrdma_inline_fixup() overruns the receive page list Chuck Lever
2016-06-15 3:17 ` [PATCH v2 19/24] xprtrdma: Do not update {head, tail}.iov_len in rpcrdma_inline_fixup() Chuck Lever
2016-06-15 3:18 ` [PATCH v2 20/24] xprtrdma: Update only specific fields in private receive buffer Chuck Lever
2016-06-15 3:18 ` [PATCH v2 21/24] xprtrdma: Clean up fixup_copy_count accounting Chuck Lever
2016-06-15 3:18 ` [PATCH v2 22/24] xprtrdma: No direct data placement with krb5i and krb5p Chuck Lever
2016-06-15 3:18 ` [PATCH v2 23/24] svc: Avoid garbage replies when pc_func() returns rpc_drop_reply Chuck Lever
2016-06-15 3:18 ` [PATCH v2 24/24] NFS: Don't drop CB requests with invalid principals Chuck Lever
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=57666CE3.3070803@gmail.com \
--to=sagigrim@gmail.com \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=leon@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).