From: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc: "Lucas De Marchi" <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>,
"Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>,
"Rodrigo Vivi" <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
"David Airlie" <airlied@gmail.com>,
"Simona Vetter" <simona@ffwll.ch>,
"Jonathan Cavitt" <jonathan.cavitt@intel.com>,
"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>,
"John Harrison" <John.C.Harrison@intel.com>,
"José Roberto de Souza" <jose.souza@intel.com>,
"Zhanjun Dong" <zhanjun.dong@intel.com>,
intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/xe: fix devcoredump chunk alignmnent calculation
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 10:51:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aBERlisb42uGjZ8j@lstrano-desk.jf.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250429073407.3505712-1-arnd@kernel.org>
On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 09:34:00AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>
> The device core dumps are copied in 1.5GB chunks, which leads to a
> link-time error on 32-bit builds because of the 64-bit division not
> getting trivially turned into mask and shift operations:
>
> ERROR: modpost: "__moddi3" [drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe.ko] undefined!
>
> On top of this, I noticed that the ALIGN_DOWN() usage here cannot
> work because that is only defined for power-of-two alignments.
> Change ALIGN_DOWN into an explicit div_u64_rem() that avoids the
> link error and hopefully produces the right results.
>
> Doing a 1.5GB kvmalloc() does seem a bit suspicious as well, e.g.
> this will clearly fail on any 32-bit platform and is also likely
> to run out of memory on 64-bit systems under memory pressure, so
> using a much smaller power-of-two chunk size might be a good idea
> instead.
>
> Fixes: c4a2e5f865b7 ("drm/xe: Add devcoredump chunking")
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Thanks for the fix, I had similar one [1] but I missed issue with
ALIGN_DOWN.
[1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/148301/
> ---
> Please test this with multi-gigabyte buffers, the original code
> was clearly not right, but I don't trust my version either.
This was tested on 64-bit only. I do see an issue with this version
though. Inline below.
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_devcoredump.c | 9 +++++----
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_devcoredump.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_devcoredump.c
> index a9e618abf8ac..4eb70e2d9f68 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_devcoredump.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_devcoredump.c
> @@ -177,6 +177,7 @@ static ssize_t xe_devcoredump_read(char *buffer, loff_t offset,
> struct xe_devcoredump *coredump = data;
> struct xe_devcoredump_snapshot *ss;
> ssize_t byte_copied;
> + u32 chunk_offset;
>
> if (!coredump)
> return -ENODEV;
> @@ -203,8 +204,9 @@ static ssize_t xe_devcoredump_read(char *buffer, loff_t offset,
>
> if (offset >= ss->read.chunk_position + XE_DEVCOREDUMP_CHUNK_MAX ||
> offset < ss->read.chunk_position) {
> - ss->read.chunk_position =
> - ALIGN_DOWN(offset, XE_DEVCOREDUMP_CHUNK_MAX);
> + ss->read.chunk_position = div_u64_rem(offset,
> + XE_DEVCOREDUMP_CHUNK_MAX, &chunk_offset)
> + * XE_DEVCOREDUMP_CHUNK_MAX;
>
> __xe_devcoredump_read(ss->read.buffer,
> XE_DEVCOREDUMP_CHUNK_MAX,
> @@ -213,8 +215,7 @@ static ssize_t xe_devcoredump_read(char *buffer, loff_t offset,
>
> byte_copied = count < ss->read.size - offset ? count :
> ss->read.size - offset;
> - memcpy(buffer, ss->read.buffer +
> - (offset % XE_DEVCOREDUMP_CHUNK_MAX), byte_copied);
> + memcpy(buffer, ss->read.buffer + chunk_offset, byte_copied);
chunk_offset is unset unless a new devcoredump is read which is every
1.5 GB. You will need always call div_u64_rem outside of the above if
statement.
Matt
>
> mutex_unlock(&coredump->lock);
>
> --
> 2.39.5
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-29 17:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-29 7:34 [PATCH] drm/xe: fix devcoredump chunk alignmnent calculation Arnd Bergmann
2025-04-29 17:51 ` Matthew Brost [this message]
2025-04-29 17:55 ` Matthew Brost
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=aBERlisb42uGjZ8j@lstrano-desk.jf.intel.com \
--to=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=John.C.Harrison@intel.com \
--cc=airlied@gmail.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=arnd@kernel.org \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jonathan.cavitt@intel.com \
--cc=jose.souza@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=simona@ffwll.ch \
--cc=thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com \
--cc=zhanjun.dong@intel.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