On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:14:19 +0200 Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Resending with the correct email of Heiko.... > > On 23.07.21 03:12, Halil Pasic wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 21:22:58 +0200 > > Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On 20.07.21 15:38, Will Deacon wrote: > >>> Hi again, folks, > >>> > >>> This is version two of the patch series I posted yesterday: > >>> > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210719123054.6844-1-will@xxxxxxxxxx > >>> > >>> The only changes since v1 are: > >>> > >>> * Squash patches 2 and 3, amending the commit message accordingly > >>> * Add Reviewed-by and Tested-by tags from Christoph and Claire (thanks!) > >>> > >>> I'd usually leave it a bit longer between postings, but since this fixes > >>> issues with patches in -next I thought I'd spin a new version immediately. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >> > >> FWIW, I just bisected virtio-errors with secure execution mode > >> qemu-system-s390x: virtio-serial-bus: Unexpected port id 4205794771 for device virtio-serial0.0 > >> > >> to > >> commit 903cd0f315fe426c6a64c54ed389de0becb663dc > >> Author: Claire Chang <tientzu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Date: Thu Jun 24 23:55:20 2021 +0800 > >> > >> swiotlb: Use is_swiotlb_force_bounce for swiotlb data bouncing > >> > >> Unfortunately this patch series does NOT fix this issue, so it seems that even more > >> things are broken. > >> > >> Any idea what else might be broken? > > > > I've done some debugging, and I think I know what is going on. Since > > that commit we need to set force_swiotlb before the swiotlb itself is > > initialized. So the patch below should fix the problem. > > > > --------------------8<------------------------------------- > > > > From: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 02:57:06 +0200 > > Subject: [PATCH 1/1] s390/pv: fix the forcing of the swiotlb > > > > Since commit 903cd0f315fe ("swiotlb: Use is_swiotlb_force_bounce for > > swiotlb data bouncing") if code sets swiotlb_force it needs to do so > > before the swiotlb is initialised. Otherwise > > io_tlb_default_mem->force_bounce will not get set to true, and devices > > that use (the default) swiotlb will not bounce despite switolb_force > > having the value of SWIOTLB_FORCE. > > > > Let us restore swiotlb functionality for PV by fulfilling this new > > requirement. > > > I would add: > Fixes: 903cd0f315fe ("swiotlb: Use is_swiotlb_force_bounce for swiotlb data bouncing") > as this patch breaks things > and > Fixes: 64e1f0c531d1 ("s390/mm: force swiotlb for protected virtualization") > > to make the s390 init code more robust in case people start backporting things. I agree. Do we want this backported to the stable releases that have 64e1f0c531d1 (i.e. do we need a cc stable) or should the fixes tag just serve as metadata? My guess is, it's the former. In that sense should I add the tags along with an explanation for the second fixes respin with cc stable? (BTW I don't think this formally qualifies for the stable backports, but I hope we can make an exception...) > > > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I can confirm that this fixes the problem. This also makes sense codewise. > > Tested-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks! Regards, Halil > > Konrad, Heiko, Vasily, any preference which tree this goes? I think s390 > would be easiest, but that requires that the patches in the swiotlb tree have > fixed commit IDs. > > > --- > > arch/s390/mm/init.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/init.c b/arch/s390/mm/init.c > > index 8ac710de1ab1..07bbee9b7320 100644 > > --- a/arch/s390/mm/init.c > > +++ b/arch/s390/mm/init.c > > @@ -186,9 +186,9 @@ static void pv_init(void) > > return; > > > > /* make sure bounce buffers are shared */ > > + swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE; > > swiotlb_init(1); > > swiotlb_update_mem_attributes(); > > - swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_FORCE; > > } > > > > void __init mem_init(void) > >
