Re: [PATCH 0/6] RISC-V: Add eMMC support for TH1520 boards

Lad, Prabhakar
2023-10-04T20:48:12Z

On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 8:38 PM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 2023-10-04 19:49, Samuel Holland wrote:
> > On 2023-10-04 12:16 PM, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 5:03 PM Lad, Prabhakar
> >> <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 3:18 PM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 04/10/2023 3:02 pm, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>> I believe commit 484861e09f3e ("soc: renesas: Kconfig: Select the
> >>>>>>>> required configs for RZ/Five SoC") can cause regression on all
> >>>>>>>> non-dma-coherent riscv platforms with generic defconfig. This is
> >>>>>>>> a common issue. The logic here is: generic riscv defconfig
> >>>>>>>> selects
> >>>>>>>> ARCH_R9A07G043 which selects DMA_GLOBAL_POOL, which assumes all
> >>>>>>>> non-dma-coherent riscv platforms have a dma global pool, this
> >>>>>>>> assumption
> >>>>>>>> seems not correct. And I believe DMA_GLOBAL_POOL should not be
> >>>>>>>> selected by ARCH_SOCFAMILIY, instead, only ARCH under some
> >>>>>>>> specific
> >>>>>>>> conditions can select it globaly, for example NOMMU ARM and so
> >>>>>>>> on.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Since this is a regression, what's proper fix? any suggestion is
> >>>>>>>> appreciated.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think the answer is to not select DMA_GLOBAL_POOL, since that is
> >>>>>> only
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well I think for RISC-V, it's not NOMMU only but applicable for every
> >>>>> core that does not support Svpbmt or vendor-specific alternatives,
> >>>>> because the original RISC-V priv spec does not define memory attributes
> >>>>> in page table entries.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For the Renesas/Andes case I think a pool is set by OpenSBI with
> >>>>> vendor-specific M-mode facility and then passed in DT, and the S-mode
> >>>>> (which MMU is enabled in) just sees fixed memory attributes, in this
> >>>>> case I think DMA_GLOBAL_POOL is needed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh wow, is that really a thing? In that case, either you just can't
> >>>> support this platform in a multi-platform kernel, or someone needs to do
> >>>> some fiddly work in dma-direct to a) introduce the notion of an optional
> >>>> global pool,
> >>> Looking at the code [0] we do have compile time check for
> >>> CONFIG_DMA_GLOBAL_POOL irrespective of this being present in DT or
> >>> not, instead if we make it compile time and runtime check ie either
> >>> check for DT node or see if pool is available and only then proceed
> >>> for allocation form this pool.
> >>>
> >>> What are your thoughts on this?
> >>>
> >> Something like the below:
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/dma-map-ops.h b/include/linux/dma-map-ops.h
> >> index f2fc203fb8a1..7bf41a4634a4 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/dma-map-ops.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/dma-map-ops.h
> >> @@ -198,6 +198,7 @@ int dma_release_from_global_coherent(int order,
> >> void *vaddr);
> >> int dma_mmap_from_global_coherent(struct vm_area_struct *vma, void *cpu_addr,
> >> size_t size, int *ret);
> >> int dma_init_global_coherent(phys_addr_t phys_addr, size_t size);
> >> +bool dma_global_pool_available(void);
> >> #else
> >> static inline void *dma_alloc_from_global_coherent(struct device *dev,
> >> ssize_t size, dma_addr_t *dma_handle)
> >> @@ -213,6 +214,10 @@ static inline int
> >> dma_mmap_from_global_coherent(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >> {
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >> +static inline bool dma_global_pool_available(void)
> >> +{
> >> + return false;
> >> +}
> >> #endif /* CONFIG_DMA_GLOBAL_POOL */
> >>
> >> /*
> >> diff --git a/kernel/dma/coherent.c b/kernel/dma/coherent.c
> >> index c21abc77c53e..605f243b8262 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/dma/coherent.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/dma/coherent.c
> >> @@ -277,6 +277,14 @@ int dma_mmap_from_dev_coherent(struct device
> >> *dev, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_DMA_GLOBAL_POOL
> >> static struct dma_coherent_mem *dma_coherent_default_memory __ro_after_init;
> >>
> >> +bool dma_global_pool_available(void)
> >> +{
> >> + if (!dma_coherent_default_memory)
> >> + return false;
> >> +
> >> + return true;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> void *dma_alloc_from_global_coherent(struct device *dev, ssize_t size,
> >> dma_addr_t *dma_handle)
> >> {
> >> diff --git a/kernel/dma/direct.c b/kernel/dma/direct.c
> >> index 9596ae1aa0da..a599bb731ceb 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/dma/direct.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/dma/direct.c
> >> @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ void *dma_direct_alloc(struct device *dev, size_t size,
> >> * If there is a global pool, always allocate from it for
> >> * non-coherent devices.
> >> */
> >> - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DMA_GLOBAL_POOL))
> >> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DMA_GLOBAL_POOL) &&
> >> dma_global_pool_available())
> >> return dma_alloc_from_global_coherent(dev, size,
> >> dma_handle);
> >
> > dma_alloc_from_global_coherent() already checks dma_coherent_default_memory, so
> > the solution could be even simpler:
> >
> > --- a/kernel/dma/direct.c
> > +++ b/kernel/dma/direct.c
> > @@ -232,12 +232,12 @@ void *dma_direct_alloc(struct device *dev, size_t size,
> > attrs);
> >
> > /*
> > - * If there is a global pool, always allocate from it for
> > + * If there is a global pool, always try to allocate from it for
> > * non-coherent devices.
> > */
> > - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DMA_GLOBAL_POOL))
> > - return dma_alloc_from_global_coherent(dev, size,
> > - dma_handle);
> > + ret = dma_alloc_from_global_coherent(dev, size, dma_handle);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
>
> So if allocation fails because the pool is full, we should go ahead and
> remap something that can't work? ;)
>
> The dma_global_pool_available() idea sort of works, but I'm still
> concerned about the case where it *should* have been available but the
> platform has been misconfigured, so again we fall through to
>
If the platform is misconfigured it is bound to fail anyway so should
we consider that as a valid case?

> DMA_DIRECT_REMAP "successfully" returning a coherent buffer that isn't,
> and the user's filesystem gets corrupted. Or at best, they get confused
> by weird errors from random devices going wrong. That's why I said it
> would be fiddly - the current state of DMA_GLOBAL_POOL as a binary
> arch-wide thing is relatively robust and easy to reason about, but
> attempting to generalise it further is... less so.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin.
>

Cheers,
Prabhakar