From: Balbir Singh <balbirs@nvidia.com>
To: iommu@lists.linux.dev
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Balbir Singh" <balbirs@nvidia.com>,
"Marek Szyprowski" <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
"Robin Murphy" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>, "Kees Cook" <kees@kernel.org>,
"Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Andy Lutomirski" <luto@kernel.org>,
"Alex Deucher" <alexander.deucher@amd.com>,
"Bert Karwatzki" <spasswolf@web.de>
Subject: [RFC] dma/mapping.c: WARN_ONCE on dma_addressing_limited() being true
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2025 19:41:10 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250412094110.3208838-1-balbirs@nvidia.com> (raw)
In the debug and resolution of an issue involving forced use of bounce
buffers, 7170130e4c72 ("x86/mm/init: Handle the special case of device
private pages in add_pages(), to not increase max_pfn and trigger
dma_addressing_limited() bounce buffers"). It would have been easier
to debug the issue if dma_addressing_limited() had a warning about a
device not being able to address all of memory and thus forcing all
accesses through a bounce buffer. Please see[2].
A warning would have let the user of the system know that in their
particular case, use_dma32 is set due to the addressing limitation
and this would impact performance of the driver in use.
Implement a WARN_ONCE() to point to the potential use of bounce buffers
when we hit the condition. When swiotlb is used,
dma_addressing_limited() is used to determine the size of maximum dma
buffer size in dma_direct_max_mapping_size(). The warning could be
triggered in that check as well.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250401000752.249348-1-balbirs@nvidia.com/ [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250310112206.4168-1-spasswolf@web.de/ [2]
Cc: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Cc: Bert Karwatzki <spasswolf@web.de>
Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh <balbirs@nvidia.com>
---
Testing: Tested lightly with on a virtual machine, I do not have access
to a device where dma_addressing_limited() is true
kernel/dma/mapping.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/dma/mapping.c b/kernel/dma/mapping.c
index cda127027e48..0f0455fa5bc8 100644
--- a/kernel/dma/mapping.c
+++ b/kernel/dma/mapping.c
@@ -918,7 +918,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_set_coherent_mask);
* the system, else %false. Lack of addressing bits is the prime reason for
* bounce buffering, but might not be the only one.
*/
-bool dma_addressing_limited(struct device *dev)
+static bool __dma_addressing_limited(struct device *dev)
{
const struct dma_map_ops *ops = get_dma_ops(dev);
@@ -930,6 +930,17 @@ bool dma_addressing_limited(struct device *dev)
return false;
return !dma_direct_all_ram_mapped(dev);
}
+
+bool dma_addressing_limited(struct device *dev)
+{
+ bool ret = __dma_addressing_limited(dev);
+
+ WARN_ONCE((ret == true),
+ "%s might have lower performance due to bounce buffering",
+ dev_name(dev));
+
+ return ret;
+}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dma_addressing_limited);
size_t dma_max_mapping_size(struct device *dev)
--
2.49.0
next reply other threads:[~2025-04-12 9:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-12 9:41 Balbir Singh [this message]
2025-04-14 5:54 ` [RFC] dma/mapping.c: WARN_ONCE on dma_addressing_limited() being true Christoph Hellwig
2025-04-14 8:25 ` Balbir Singh
2025-04-14 9:45 ` Christian König
2025-04-14 10:02 ` Marek Szyprowski
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=20250412094110.3208838-1-balbirs@nvidia.com \
--to=balbirs@nvidia.com \
--cc=alexander.deucher@amd.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=m.szyprowski@samsung.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=spasswolf@web.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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).