Re: [PATCH] swiotlb: set IO TLB segment size via cmdline
From: Jan Beulich <hidden>
Date: 2021-09-15 13:50:05
Also in:
linux-doc, linux-iommu, linux-mips, lkml, xen-devel
On 15.09.2021 15:37, Roman Skakun wrote:
quoted
quoted
From: Roman Skakun <redacted> It is possible when default IO TLB size is not enough to fit a long buffers as described here [1]. This patch makes a way to set this parameter using cmdline instead of recompiling a kernel. [1] https://www.xilinx.com/support/answers/72694.htmlI'm not convinced the swiotlb use describe there falls under "intended use" - mapping a 1280x720 framebuffer in a single chunk?I had the same issue while mapping DMA chuck ~4MB for gem fb when using xen vdispl. I got the next log: [ 142.030421] rcar-fcp fea2f000.fcp: swiotlb buffer is full (sz: 3686400 bytes), total 32768 (slots), used 32 (slots) It happened when I tried to map bounce buffer, which has a large size. The default size if 128(IO_TLB_SEGSIZE) * 2048(IO_TLB_SHIFT) = 262144 bytes, but we requested 3686400 bytes. When I change IO_TLB_SEGSIZE to 2048. (2048(IO_TLB_SEGSIZE) * 2048(IO_TLB_SHIFT) = 4194304bytes). It makes possible to retrieve a bounce buffer for requested size. After changing this value, the problem is gone.
But the question remains: Why does the framebuffer need to be mapped in a single giant chunk?
quoted
In order to be sure to catch all uses like this one (including ones which make it upstream in parallel to yours), I think you will want to rename the original IO_TLB_SEGSIZE to e.g. IO_TLB_DEFAULT_SEGSIZE.I don't understand your point. Can you clarify this?
There's a concrete present example: I have a patch pending adding another use of IO_TLB_SEGSIZE. This use would need to be replaced like you do here in several places. The need for the additional replacement would be quite obvious (from a build failure) if you renamed the manifest constant. Without renaming, it'll take someone running into an issue on a live system, which I consider far worse. This is because a simple re-basing of one of the patches on top of the other will not point out the need for the extra replacement, nor would a test build (with both patches in place). Jan