Re: ibmveth bug?
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Date: Fri Jul 20 2012 - 20:52:58 EST
On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 15:41 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> Ping on this ... we've tripped the same issue on a different system, it
> would appear. Would appreciate if anyone can provide answers to the
> questions below.
Well, I haven't hit it but your description makes sense. Why not use
dma_alloc_coherent though ? Rather than kmalloc followed by map ?
At least on power we give you page alignment for these, so the problem
is solved magically :-) Another option is GFP + dma_map_page which is
If you think it's a waste of space based on the queue size, then just
add an extra pointer, I wouldn't bother with a cache for something only
allocated when the driver initializes.
> On 15.05.2012 [10:01:41 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > Hi Santiago,
> > Are you still working on ibmveth?
> > I've found a very sporadic bug with ibmveth in some testing. PAPR
> > requires that:
> > "Validate the Buffer Descriptor of the receive queue buffer (I/O
> > addresses for entire buffer length starting at the spec- ified I/O
> > address are translated by the RTCE table, length is a multiple of 16
> > bytes, and alignment is on a 16 byte boundary) else H_Parameter."
> > but from what I can tell ibmveth.c is not enforcing this last condition:
> > adapter->rx_queue.queue_addr =
> > kmalloc(adapter->rx_queue.queue_len, GFP_KERNEL);
> > ...
> > adapter->rx_queue.queue_dma = dma_map_single(dev,
> > adapter->rx_queue.queue_addr, adapter->rx_queue.queue_len,
> > DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL);
> > ...
> > rxq_desc.fields.address = adapter->rx_queue.queue_dma;
> > ...
> > lpar_rc = ibmveth_register_logical_lan(adapter, rxq_desc,
> > mac_address);
> > netdev_err(netdev, "buffer TCE:0x%llx filter TCE:0x%llx rxq "
> > "desc:0x%llx MAC:0x%llx\n", adapter->buffer_list_dma,
> > adapter->filter_list_dma, rxq_desc.desc, mac_address);
> > And I got on one install attempt:
> > [ 39.978430] ibmveth 30000004: eth0: h_register_logical_lan failed with -4
> > [ 39.978449] ibmveth 30000004: eth0: buffer TCE:0x1000 filter TCE:0x10000 rxq desc:0x80006010000200a8 MAC:0x56754de8e904
> > rxq desc, as you can see is not 16byte aligned. kmalloc() only
> > guarantees 8-byte alignment (as does gcc, I think). Initially, I thought
> > we could just overallocate the queue_addr and ALIGN() down, but then we
> > would need to save the original kmalloc pointer in a new struct member
> > per rx_queue.
> > So a couple of questions:
> > 1) Is my analysis accurate? :)
> > 2) How gross would it be to save an extra pointer for every rx_queue?
> > 3) Based upon 2), is it better to just go ahead and create our own
> > kmem_cache (which gets an alignment specified)?
> > For 3), I started coding this, but couldn't find a clean place to
> > allocate the kmem_cache itself, as the size of each object depends on
> > the run-time characteristics (afaict), but needs to be specified at
> > cache creation time. Any insight you could provide would be great!
> > Thanks,
> > Nish
> > --
> > Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > IBM Linux Technology Center
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/