On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 09:52:52AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 09:39 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>
> > > check_unmap():
> > > This is an existing internal routines that checks for unmap errors,
> > > changed to increment dma_unmap_errors for the current device, as well
> > > as the dma_unmap_errors counter for the system, dma-debug api keeps
> > > track of, when a device requests an invalid address to be unmapped.
> > > Please note that this routine can no longer call dma_mapping_error(),
> > > because of the newly added debug_dma_mapping_error() interface. Calling
> > > dma_mapping_error() from this routine will decrement
> > > dma_map_errors_not_checked counter incorrectly.
> >
> >
> > I like the direction of this patch. That said I am wondering why you
> > choose to do it this way? Was there no way to have all of the logic within
> > debug dma file, and within check_unmap?
>
> > What is the extra complexity? Can you explain as if I was a newbie to debug DMA
> > API - perhaps there is still some hope in doing it there?
> >
> > > struct device eliminates the need for maintaining failed mappings in dma-debug
> > > infrastructure and is cleaner and simpler without impacting the existing
> > > dma-debug infrastructure.
> >
> > Could you explain please why it would be more difficult to do it in the existing
> > dma-debug infrastructure?
>
> I started out with a goal to provide a debug infrastructure to track all
> the cases where dma mapping errors go unchecked.
>
> I could have gone the route to track system wide counts and not be
> concerned about per device counts. In which case, it would be a sub-set
> of the functionality in this pacth. i.e debug_dma_map_page() increments
> dma_map_errors and dma_map_errors_not_checked. The new interface
> debug_dma_mapping_error() simply decrements dma_map_errors_not_checked.
>
> check_unmap() can increment the third system wide counter,
> dma_unmap_errors.
>
> However, system wide counters are of limited use, per device counters
> wil gine us the ability to identify the drivers that need fixing and
> fix them and have a way to regression test old drivers and sanity check
> the new in the future.
>
> Having decided on per device counters, my first approach was looking
> into enhancing dma-debug infrastructure and contain this logic within
> that module by enhancing the existing dma_debug_entry to track these
> errors.
>
> One issue with this approach is that the current dma-debug
> infrastructure tracks only the successful mappings. Entries are added to
> the dma_debug_entry able from mapping interfaces for good maps. This
> table is hashed using the mapped address (dma_addr). When dma mapping
> error is detected by the debug interfaces debug_dma_map_page() namely,
> nothing gets added to the dma_debug_entry table.
The check for the violations you are trying to find is to find that
during the life-time of 'map_page' -> 'unmap_page' that 'dma_mapping_error'
has been called. Presumarily part of that are good maps?
So what would it take to keep that state for that scenario? Could you
use the existing system of lookup?
For the scenario where the result of 'map_page' is invalid it seems
that you would need to use a completely different hash key anyway, as:
extern dma_addr_t swiotlb_map_page(struct device *dev, struct page *page,
unsigned long offset, size_t size,
enum dma_data_direction dir,
struct dma_attrs *attrs);
on the input side you get 'struct device','struct page'... and that is it.
The DMA API is responsible for providing you with the 'dma_addr' which
is going to be zero or -1, or some valid DMA scratch address, depending on the IOMMU.
On the later invocation, so 'unmap_page', you have:
extern void swiotlb_unmap_page(struct device *hwdev, dma_addr_t dev_addr,
size_t size, enum dma_data_direction dir,
struct dma_attrs *attrs);
you are feed the 'dev_addr' that 'map_page' came up with (-1 or 0) and the
'struct device'.
Perhaps you could use just 'struct device' and 'dma_addr' and life with
the possiblity of the device doing multiple of these map_page where it gets
a invalid address and does nothing about it. If it does the 'dma_mapping_error'
you could deduct the count of invalid DMA address?
>
> Tracking failed mappings would require either changing the current table
> usage to include failed maps and change the hash function to use some
> other key instead of the mapped address. I didn't want to go that route.
> One option I considered was to maintain device list with dma-debug
> module and at that point adding fields to struct device sounded like one
> way to go instead of adding another set of parallel data structures to
> maintain the association between these counts and devices.
>
> But from what I am hearing as feedback "changing struct device for this
> purpose is not a desirable." :)
Yup.
>
> I will go back and take a look at another approach to not disturb the
> existing dma_debug_entry usage, still provide per device counts
> contained within the dma-debug module. I have couple of ideas to pursue
> further and see if they work.
OK. Would it help if we suggested some ideas or do you want to try to
mull some of your ideas first?
>
> -- Shuah
>
>
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
