...whoops. Ignore this patch-Chris Wilson had requested that I send a patch along with this one to enable CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG_SG in CI, but I completely forgot to do that before sending. Will send out a reroll with that in just a moment On Thu, 2019-08-22 at 16:04 -0400, Lyude Paul wrote: > Currently, we don't call dma_set_max_seg_size() for i915 because we > intentionally do not limit the segment length that the device supports. > However, this results in a warning being emitted if we try to map > anything larger than SZ_64K on a kernel with CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG_SG > enabled: > > [ 7.751926] DMA-API: i915 0000:00:02.0: mapping sg segment longer > than device claims to support [len=98304] [max=65536] > [ 7.751934] WARNING: CPU: 5 PID: 474 at kernel/dma/debug.c:1220 > debug_dma_map_sg+0x20f/0x340 > > This was originally brought up on > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108517 , and the consensus > there was it wasn't really useful to set a limit (and that dma-debug > isn't really all that useful for i915 in the first place). Unfortunately > though, CONFIG_DMA_API_DEBUG_SG is enabled in the debug configs for > various distro kernels. Since a WARN_ON() will disable automatic problem > reporting (and cause any CI with said option enabled to start > complaining), we really should just fix the problem. > > Note that as me and Chris Wilson discussed, the other solution for this > would be to make DMA-API not make such assumptions when a driver hasn't > explicitly set a maximum segment size. But, taking a look at the commit > which originally introduced this behavior, commit 78c47830a5cb > ("dma-debug: check scatterlist segments"), there is an explicit mention > of this assumption and how it applies to devices with no segment size: > > Conversely, devices which are less limited than the rather > conservative defaults, or indeed have no limitations at all > (e.g. GPUs with their own internal MMU), should be encouraged to > set appropriate dma_parms, as they may get more efficient DMA > mapping performance out of it. > > So unless there's any concerns (I'm open to discussion!), let's just > follow suite and call dma_set_max_seg_size() with UINT_MAX as our limit > to silence any warnings. > > Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v4.18+ > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c > index 0b81e0b64393..a1475039d182 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c > @@ -3152,6 +3152,11 @@ static int ggtt_probe_hw(struct i915_ggtt *ggtt, > struct intel_gt *gt) > if (ret) > return ret; > > + /* We don't have a max segment size, so set it to the max so sg's > + * debugging layer doesn't complain > + */ > + dma_set_max_seg_size(ggtt->vm.dma, UINT_MAX); > + > if ((ggtt->vm.total - 1) >> 32) { > DRM_ERROR("We never expected a Global GTT with more than > 32bits" > " of address space! Found %lldM!\n", -- Cheers, Lyude Paul _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
