On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 16:24:53 +0000
Michael Kelley <mhklinux@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Petr Tesařík <petr@xxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2024 1:06 PM
> >
> > On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 20:40:16 +0000
> > Michael Kelley <mhklinux@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Petr Tesařík <petr@xxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 11:45 PM
> > >[...]
> > > > > Discussion
> > > > > ==========
> > > > > * Since swiotlb isn't visible to device drivers, I've specifically
> > > > > named the DMA attribute as MAY_BLOCK instead of MAY_THROTTLE or
> > > > > something swiotlb specific. While this patch set consumes MAY_BLOCK
> > > > > only on the DMA direct path to do throttling in the swiotlb code,
> > > > > there might be other uses in the future outside of CoCo VMs, or
> > > > > perhaps on the IOMMU path.
> > > >
> > > > I once introduced a similar flag and called it MAY_SLEEP. I chose
> > > > MAY_SLEEP, because there is already a might_sleep() annotation, but I
> > > > don't have a strong opinion unless your semantics is supposed to be
> > > > different from might_sleep(). If it is, then I strongly prefer
> > > > MAY_BLOCK to prevent confusing the two.
> > >
> > > My intent is that the semantics are the same as might_sleep(). I
> > > vacillated between MAY_SLEEP and MAY_BLOCK. The kernel seems
> > > to treat "sleep" and "block" as equivalent, because blk-mq has
> > > the BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING flag, and SCSI has the
> > > queuecommand_may_block flag that is translated to
> > > BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING. So I settled on MAY_BLOCK, but as you
> > > point out, that's inconsistent with might_sleep(). Either way will
> > > be inconsistent somewhere, and I don't have a preference.
> >
> > Fair enough. Let's stay with MAY_BLOCK then, so you don't have to
> > change it everywhere.
> >
> > >[...]
> > > > > Open Topics
> > > > > ===========
> > > > > 1. swiotlb allocations from Xen and the IOMMU code don't make use
> > > > > of throttling. This could be added if beneficial.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. The throttling values are currently exposed and adjustable in
> > > > > /sys/kernel/debug/swiotlb. Should any of this be moved so it is
> > > > > visible even without CONFIG_DEBUG_FS?
> > > >
> > > > Yes. It should be possible to control the thresholds through
> > > > sysctl.
> > >
> > > Good point. I was thinking about creating /sys/kernel/swiotlb, but
> > > sysctl is better.
> >
> > That still leaves the question where it should go.
> >
> > Under /proc/sys/kernel? Or should we make a /proc/sys/kernel/dma
> > subdirectory to make room for more dma-related controls?
>
> I would be good with /proc/sys/kernel/swiotlb (or "dma"). There
> are only two entries (high_throttle and low_throttle), but just
> dumping everything directly in /proc/sys/kernel doesn't seem like
> a good long-term approach. Even though there are currently a lot
> of direct entries in /proc/sys/kernel, that may be historical, and not
> changeable due to backwards compatibility requirements.
I think SWIOTLB is a bit too narrow. How many controls would we add
under /proc/sys/kernel/swiotlb? The chances seem higher if we call it
/proc/sys/kernel/dma/swiotlb_{low,high}_throttle, and it follows the
paths in source code (which are subject to change any time, however).
Anyway, I don't want to get into bikeshedding; I'm fine with whatever
you send in the end. :-)
BTW those entries directly under /proc/sys/kernel are not all
historical. The io_uring_* controls were added just last year, see
commit 76d3ccecfa18.
Petr T
