On 6/11/2021 1:35 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 08:21:53AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 05:52:07PM +0300, Horia Geantă wrote: >>> I've noticed the failure also in v5.10 and v5.11 stable kernels, >>> since the patch set has been backported. >> >> FYI, there has been a patch on the list that should have fixed this >> for about a month: >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/20210510091816.GA2084@xxxxxx/T/#m0d0df6490350a08dcc24c9086c8edc165b402d6f >> >> but it seems like it never got picked up. > > Yikes! > > Dominique, > > Would you be up to testing the attached (and inline) patch please? > > Linus, > > Would you be terribly offended if I took your code (s/unsigned > long/unsigned int), and used Chanho's description of the problem (see below)? > Both patches work for my case. However, there's yet another, possibly significant, difference b/w the two: offset = (tlb_addr - mem->start) & (IO_TLB_SIZE - 1); vs. offset = (tlb_addr & (IO_TLB_SIZE - 1)) - swiotlb_align_offset(dev, orig_addr); I think accounting for the alignment offset (swiotlb_align_offset()) has to be kept. Horia
