[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: Regression when booting 5.15 as dom0 on arm64 (WAS: Re: [linux-linus test] 161829: regressions - FAIL)
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 06:46:34PM -0700, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Mon, 10 May 2021, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Sat, May 08, 2021 at 12:32:37AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: > > > The pointer dereferenced seems to suggest that the swiotlb hasn't been > > > allocated. From what I can tell, this may be because swiotlb_force is set > > > to SWIOTLB_NO_FORCE, we will still enable the swiotlb when running on top > > > of Xen. > > > > > > I am not entirely sure what would be the correct fix. Any opinions? > > > > Can you try something like the patch below (not even compile tested, but > > the intent should be obvious? > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c > > index 16a2b2b1c54d..7671bc153fb1 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c > > @@ -44,6 +44,8 @@ > > #include <asm/tlb.h> > > #include <asm/alternative.h> > > > > +#include <xen/arm/swiotlb-xen.h> > > + > > /* > > * We need to be able to catch inadvertent references to memstart_addr > > * that occur (potentially in generic code) before arm64_memblock_init() > > @@ -482,7 +484,7 @@ void __init mem_init(void) > > if (swiotlb_force == SWIOTLB_FORCE || > > max_pfn > PFN_DOWN(arm64_dma_phys_limit)) > > swiotlb_init(1); > > - else > > + else if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XEN) || !xen_swiotlb_detect()) > > swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_NO_FORCE; > > > > set_max_mapnr(max_pfn - PHYS_PFN_OFFSET); > > The "IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XEN)" is not needed as the check is already part > of xen_swiotlb_detect(). As far as I can tell the x86 version of xen_swiotlb_detect has a !CONFIG_XEN stub. The arm/arm64 version in uncoditionally declared, but the implementation only compiled when Xen support is enabled. > > > But let me ask another question first. Do you think it makes sense to have: > > if (swiotlb_force == SWIOTLB_NO_FORCE) > return 0; > > at the beginning of swiotlb_late_init_with_tbl? I am asking because > swiotlb_late_init_with_tbl is meant for special late initializations, > right? It shouldn't really matter the presence or absence of > SWIOTLB_NO_FORCE in regards to swiotlb_late_init_with_tbl. Also the > commit message for "swiotlb: Make SWIOTLB_NO_FORCE perform no > allocation" says that "If a platform was somehow setting > swiotlb_no_force and a later call to swiotlb_init() was to be made we > would still be proceeding with allocating the default SWIOTLB size > (64MB)." Our case here is very similar, right? So the allocation should > proceed? Well, right now SWIOTLB_NO_FORCE is checked in dma_direct_map_page. We need to clean all this up a bit, especially with the work to support multiple swiotlb buffers, but I think for now this is the best we can do. > Which brings me to a separate unrelated issue, still affecting the path > xen_swiotlb_init -> swiotlb_late_init_with_tbl. If swiotlb_init(1) is > called by mem_init then swiotlb_late_init_with_tbl will fail due to the > check: > > /* protect against double initialization */ > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(io_tlb_default_mem)) > return -ENOMEM; > > xen_swiotlb_init is meant to ask Xen to make a bunch of pages physically > contiguous. Then, it initializes the swiotlb buffer based on those > pages. So it is a problem that swiotlb_late_init_with_tbl refuses to > continue. However, in practice it is not a problem today because on ARM > we don't actually make any special requests to Xen to make the pages > physically contiguous (yet). See the empty implementation of > arch/arm/xen/mm.c:xen_create_contiguous_region. I don't know about x86. > > So maybe we should instead do something like the appended? So I'd like to change the core swiotlb initialization to just use a callback into the arch/xen code to make the pages contigous and kill all that code duplication. Together with the multiple swiotlb buffer work I'd rather avoid churn that goes into a different direction if possible.
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |