On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 12:53:19PM +0200, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote: > On Sat, 2020-10-10 at 12:36 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 at 19:10, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 06:23:06PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > > On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 at 17:24, Lorenzo Pieralisi > > > > <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > We can move this check to IORT code and call it from arm64 if it > > > > > can be made to work. > > > > > > > > Finding the smallest value in the IORT, and assigning it to > > > > zone_dma_bits if it is < 32 should be easy. But as I understand it, > > > > having these separate DMA and DMA32 zones is what breaks kdump, no? So > > > > how is this going to fix the underlying issue? > > > > > > If zone_dma_bits is 32, ZONE_DMA32 disappears into ZONE_DMA (GFP_DMA32 > > > allocations fall back to ZONE_DMA). > > > > > > kdump wants DMA-able memory and, without a 30-bit ZONE_DMA, that would > > > be the bottom 32-bit. With the introduction of ZONE_DMA, this suddenly > > > became 1GB. We could change kdump to allocate ZONE_DMA32 but this one > > > may also be small as it lost 1GB to ZONE_DMA. However, the kdump kernel > > > would need to be rebuilt without ZONE_DMA since it won't have any. IIRC > > > (it's been a while since I looked), the kdump allocation couldn't span > > > multiple zones. > > > > > > In a separate thread, we try to fix kdump to use allocations above 4G as > > > a fallback but this only fixes platforms with enough RAM (and maybe it's > > > only those platforms that care about kdump). > > > > > > > One thing that strikes me as odd is that we are applying the same > > shifting logic to ZONE_DMA as we are applying to ZONE_DMA32, i.e., if > > DRAM starts outside of the zone, it is shifted upwards. > > > > On a typical ARM box, this gives me > > > > [ 0.000000] Zone ranges: > > [ 0.000000] DMA [mem 0x0000000080000000-0x00000000bfffffff] > > [ 0.000000] DMA32 [mem 0x00000000c0000000-0x00000000ffffffff] > > [ 0.000000] Normal [mem 0x0000000100000000-0x0000000fffffffff] > > > > i.e., the 30-bit addressable range has bit 31 set, which is weird. > > Yes I agree it's weird, and IMO plain useless. I sent a series this summer to > address this[1], which ultimately triggered the discussion we're having right > now. I don't mind assuming that ZONE_DMA is always from pfn 0 (i.e. no dma_offset for such constrained devices). But if ZONE_DMA32 is squeezed out with ZONE_DMA extended to 4GB, it should allow non-zero upper 32 bits. IIRC we do have SoCs with RAM starting above 4GB. However, your patch didn't completely solve the problem for non-RPi4 platforms as there's hardware with RAM starting at 0 that doesn't need the 1GB ZONE_DMA. We may end up with a combination of the two approaches. > Although with with your latest patch and the DT counterpart, we should be OK. > It would be weird for a HW description to define DMA constraints that are > impossible to reach on that system. I don't remember the difficulties with parsing a DT early for inferring the ZONE_DMA requirements. Could we not check the dma-ranges property in the soc node? I can see bcm2711.dtsi defines a 30-bit address range. We are not interested in the absolute physical/bus addresses, just the size to check whether it's smaller than 32-bit. > > I wonder if it wouldn't be better (and less problematic in the general > > case) to drop this logic for ZONE_DMA, and simply let it remain empty > > unless there is really some memory there. > > From my experience, you can't have empty ZONE_DMA when enabled. Empty > ZONE_DMA32 is OK though. Although I'm sure it's something that can be changed. Indeed, because we still have GFP_DMA around which can't fall back to ZONE_DMA32 (well, unless CONFIG_ZONE_DMA is disabled). -- Catalin
