From: Shuah Khan <shuah.khan@hp.com>
To: fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, bhelgaas@google.com,
amwang@redhat.com, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, shuahkhan@gmail.com
Subject: dma mapping error check analysis
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:46:42 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1344638802.8018.18.camel@lorien2> (raw)
I analyzed current calls to dma_map_single() and dma_map_page() in the kernel
to see if dma mapping errors are checked after mapping routines return.
Reference linux-next August 6 2012.
This analysis stemmed from the discussion on my patch that disables swiotlb
overflow as a first step towards removing the support all together. Please
refer to thread below:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/24/391
The goal of this analysis is to find drivers that don't currently check dma
mapping errors and fix them. I did a grep for dma_map_single() and
dma_map_page() and looked at the code that calls these routines. I classified
the results of dma mapping error check status as follows:
Broken:
1. No error checks
2. Partial checks - In that source file, not all calls are followed by checks.
3. Checks dma mapping errors, doesn't unmap already mapped pages when mapping
error occurs in the middle of a multiple mapping attempt.
The first two categories are classified as broken and need fixing.
The third one needs fixing, since it leaves dangling mapped pages, and holds
on to them which is equivalent to memory leak. Some drivers release all mapped
pages when the device closes, but others don't. Not doing unmap might be
harmless on some architectures going by the comments I found in some source
files.
Good:
1. Checks dma mapping errors and unmaps already mapped pages when mapping
error occurs in the middle of a multiple mapping attempt.
2. Checks dma mapping errors without unlikely()
3. Checks dma mapping errors with unlikely()
I lumped the above three cases as good cases. Using unlikely() is icing on the
cake, and something we need to be concerned about compared to other problems in
this area.
- dmap_map_single() - results
No error checks - 195 (46%)
Partial checks - 46 (11%)
Doesn't unmap: 26 (6%)
Good: 147 (35%)
- dma_map_page() - results
No error checks: 61 (59%)
Partial checks: 7 (.06%)
Doesn't unmap: 15 (14.5%)
Good: 20 (19%)
In summary a large % of the cases (> 50%) go unchecked. That raises the
following questions:
When do mapping errors get detected?
How often do these errors occur?
Why don't we see failures related to missing dma mapping error checks?
Are they silent failures?
Based on what I found, I am not too eager to remove swiotlb overflow support
which would increase the probability of returning dma mapping errors.
However I propose the following to gather more information:
- Change swiotlb to log (pr_info or pr_debug) cases where overflow buffer is
triggered. (This is a delta on the disable swiotlb patch I sent a few weeks
ago - References in this posting).
- Change dma_map_single() and dma_map_page() to track how many times they
return before attempting to fix all the places that don't do dma mapping
error checks. (Maybe a counter that keeps track, pr_* is not an option).
Comments, thoughts on the analysis and proposal are welcome.
-- Shuah
next reply other threads:[~2012-08-10 22:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-10 22:46 Shuah Khan [this message]
2012-08-17 14:11 ` dma mapping error check analysis Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-08-17 18:02 ` Shuah Khan
2012-08-24 21:14 ` [PATCH] swiotlb: Add support to disable swiotlb overflow buffer with deprecation warning Shuah Khan
2012-08-25 18:25 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-08-27 12:38 ` Shuah Khan
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=1344638802.8018.18.camel@lorien2 \
--to=shuah.khan@hp.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=amwang@redhat.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul.gortmaker@windriver.com \
--cc=shuahkhan@gmail.com \
/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).