Hi Jan, >>> 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). It's reasonable. I will change the original IO_TLB_SEGSIZE to IO_TLB_DEFAULT_SEGSIZE in the next patch series. Thanks. ср, 15 сент. 2021 г. в 16:50, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>: > > On 15.09.2021 15:37, Roman Skakun wrote: > >>> From: Roman Skakun <roman_skakun@xxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> 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.html > >> > >> I'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? > > >> 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 > -- Best Regards, Roman.
