From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751819AbeDKH26 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 11 Apr 2018 03:28:58 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:48902 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1750727AbeDKH24 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 11 Apr 2018 03:28:56 -0400
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 09:28:54 +0200
Message-ID: <s5h4lkib3rd.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        Christian =?UTF-8?B?S8O2bmln?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] swiotlb: Fix unexpected swiotlb_alloc_coherent()   failures
In-Reply-To: <20180410181020.GA28565@lst.de>
References: <20180410170513.22834-1-tiwai@suse.de>
        <20180410170615.GA27589@lst.de>
        <s5hzi2bat25.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
        <40618b9c-786d-7f5f-3f5b-fc1dd8375846@arm.com>
        <20180410181020.GA28565@lst.de>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka)
 FLIM/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL/10.8 Emacs/25.3
 (x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 20:10:20 +0200,
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 06:50:04PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > In the first one, the machine appears to have enough RAM that most of it is 
> > beyond the device's 36-bit DMA mask, thus it's fairly likely for the 
> > initial direct alloc to come back with something unsuitable.
> 
> But we should try a GFP_DMA32 allocation first, so this is a bit
> surprising.

Hm, do we really try that?
Through a quick glance, dma_alloc_coherent_gfp_flags() gives GFP_DMA32
only when coherent mask <= DMA_BIT_MASK(32); in the case of iwlwifi,
it's 36bit, so GFP_DMA isn't set.

We had a fallback allocation with GFP_DMA32 in the past, but this
seems gone long time ago along with cleanups (commit c647c3bb2d16).

But I haven't followed about this topic for long time, so I might have
missed obviously...


thanks,

Takashi