Re: multipath IB/srp fail-over testing lands up in dump stack in swiotlb_alloc_coherent()

Laurence Oberman
2016-06-13T22:30:04Z

> From: "Laurence Oberman" <loberman-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> To: leon-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org
> Cc: "Bart Van Assche" <bart.vanassche-XdAiOPVOjttBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>, "Yishai Hadas" <yishaih-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>, linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 11:22:19 AM
> Subject: Re: multipath IB/srp fail-over testing lands up in dump stack in swiotlb_alloc_coherent()
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Laurence Oberman" <loberman-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> > To: leon-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org
> > Cc: "Bart Van Assche" <bart.vanassche-XdAiOPVOjttBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>, "Yishai Hadas"
> > <yishaih-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>, linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 10:19:57 AM
> > Subject: Re: multipath IB/srp fail-over testing lands up in dump stack in
> > swiotlb_alloc_coherent()
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Leon Romanovsky" <leon-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> > > To: "Bart Van Assche" <bart.vanassche-XdAiOPVOjttBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
> > > Cc: "Yishai Hadas" <yishaih-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>, "Laurence Oberman"
> > > <loberman-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> > > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 10:07:47 AM
> > > Subject: Re: multipath IB/srp fail-over testing lands up in dump stack in
> > > swiotlb_alloc_coherent()
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:32:53PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > > On 06/12/2016 03:40 PM, Laurence Oberman wrote:
> > > > >Jun 8 10:12:52 jumpclient kernel: mlx5_core 0000:08:00.1: swiotlb
> > > > >buffer
> > > > >is full (sz: 266240 bytes)
> > > > >Jun 8 10:12:52 jumpclient kernel: swiotlb: coherent allocation failed
> > > > >for
> > > > >device 0000:08:00.1 size=266240
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I think the above means that the coherent memory allocation succeeded
> > > > but
> > > > that the test dev_addr + size - 1 <= DMA_BIT_MASK(32) failed. Can
> > > > someone
> > > > from Mellanox tell us whether or not it would be safe to set
> > > > coherent_dma_mask to DMA_BIT_MASK(64) for the mlx4 and mlx5 drivers?
> > >
> > > Bart and Laurence,
> > > We are actually doing it For mlx5 driver.
> > >
> > > 926 static int mlx5_pci_init(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev, struct mlx5_priv
> > > *priv)
> > > <...>
> > > 961 err = set_dma_caps(pdev);
> > >
> > > 187 static int set_dma_caps(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> > > <...>
> > > 201 err = pci_set_consistent_dma_mask(pdev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
> > > 202 if (err) {
> > > 203 dev_warn(&pdev->dev,
> > > 204 "Warning: couldn't set 64-bit consistent PCI
> > > DMA
> > > mask\n");
> > > 205 err = pci_set_consistent_dma_mask(pdev,
> > > DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
> > > 206 if (err) {
> > > 207 dev_err(&pdev->dev,
> > > 208 "Can't set consistent PCI DMA mask,
> > > aborting\n");
> > > 209 return err;
> > > 210 }
> > > 211 }
> > >
> > > 118 static inline int pci_set_consistent_dma_mask(struct pci_dev *dev,u64
> > > mask)
> > > 119 {
> > > 120 return dma_set_coherent_mask(&dev->dev, mask);
> > > 121 }
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Bart.
> > > > --
> > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma"
> > > > in
> > > > the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> > > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > >
> > Hi Leon,
> >
> > OK I see it now
> >
> > static int set_dma_caps(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> > {
> > int err;
> >
> > err = pci_set_dma_mask(pdev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
> > if (err) {
> >
> > Thanks
> > Laurence
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >
>
> Replying to my own email.
> Leon, what is the implication of the mapping failure.
> Its only in the reconnect stack when I am restarting controllers with the
> messaging and stack dump masked I still see the failure but it seems
> transparent in that all the paths come back.
>
> [ 1595.167812] mlx5_core 0000:08:00.0: swiotlb buffer is full (sz: 266240
> bytes)
> [ 1595.379133] mlx5_core 0000:08:00.0: swiotlb buffer is full (sz: 266240
> bytes)
> [ 1595.460627] mlx5_core 0000:08:00.0: swiotlb buffer is full (sz: 266240
> bytes)
> [ 1598.121096] scsi host1: reconnect attempt 3 failed (-48)
> [ 1608.187869] mlx5_core 0000:08:00.0: swiotlb buffer is full (sz: 266240
> bytes)
> [ 1615.911705] scsi host1: reconnect attempt 4 failed (-12)
> [ 1641.446017] scsi host1: ib_srp: Got failed path rec status -110
> [ 1641.482947] scsi host1: ib_srp: Path record query failed
> [ 1641.513454] scsi host1: reconnect attempt 5 failed (-110)
> [ 1662.330883] scsi host1: ib_srp: Got failed path rec status -110
> [ 1662.361224] scsi host1: ib_srp: Path record query failed
> [ 1662.390768] scsi host1: reconnect attempt 6 failed (-110)
> [ 1683.892311] scsi host1: ib_srp: Got failed path rec status -110
> [ 1683.922653] scsi host1: ib_srp: Path record query failed
> [ 1683.952717] scsi host1: reconnect attempt 7 failed (-110)
> SM port is up
>
> Entering MASTER state
>
> [ 1705.254048] scsi host1: REJ reason 0x8
> [ 1705.274869] scsi host1: reconnect attempt 8 failed (-104)
> [ 1723.264914] scsi host1: REJ reason 0x8
> [ 1723.285193] scsi host1: reconnect attempt 9 failed (-104)
> [ 1743.658091] scsi host1: REJ reason 0x8
> [ 1743.678562] scsi host1: reconnect attempt 10 failed (-104)
> [ 1761.911512] scsi host1: REJ reason 0x8
> [ 1761.932006] scsi host1: reconnect attempt 11 failed (-104)
> [ 1782.209020] scsi host1: ib_srp: reconnect succeeded
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
> the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

Hi Leon

Calling relationship looks like this.

swiotlb_alloc_coherent
u64 dma_mask = DMA_BIT_MASK(32);

May get overwritten here, I assume as a 64 bit mask right ?

if (hwdev && hwdev->coherent_dma_mask)
dma_mask = hwdev->coherent_dma_mask; ***** Is this now DMA_BIT_MASK(64)

We fail here and then try single but we fail so we see the warning
ret = (void *)__get_free_pages(flags, order);

It seems to be a non-critical event in that when we are able to reconnect we do.
I am missing how we recover here. I assume on next try we pass.
I will add some instrumentation to figure this out.

if (!ret) {
/*
* We are either out of memory or the device can't DMA to
* GFP_DMA memory; fall back on map_single(), which
* will grab memory from the lowest available address range.
*/
phys_addr_t paddr = map_single(hwdev, 0, size, DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
if (paddr == SWIOTLB_MAP_ERROR)
goto err_warn;

ret = phys_to_virt(paddr);
dev_addr = phys_to_dma(hwdev, paddr);

/* Confirm address can be DMA'd by device */
if (dev_addr + size - 1 > dma_mask) {
printk("hwdev DMA mask = 0x%016Lx, dev_addr = 0x%016Lx\n",
(unsigned long long)dma_mask,
(unsigned long long)dev_addr);

/* DMA_TO_DEVICE to avoid memcpy in unmap_single */
swiotlb_tbl_unmap_single(hwdev, paddr,
size, DMA_TO_DEVICE);
goto err_warn;
}
}