Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mtd: devices: m25p80: Enable spi-nor bounce buffer support

[Frode Isaksen <fisaksen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 02/03/2017 16:25, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:03:17 +0100
> Frode Isaksen <fisaksen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 02/03/2017 15:29, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 19:24:43 +0530
>>> Vignesh R <vigneshr@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>  
>>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>> Not really, I am debugging another issue with UBIFS on DRA74 EVM (ARM
>>>>>>> cortex-a15) wherein pages allocated by vmalloc are in highmem region
>>>>>>> that are not addressable using 32 bit addresses and is backed by LPAE.
>>>>>>> So, a 32 bit DMA cannot access these buffers at all.
>>>>>>> When dma_map_sg() is called to map these pages by spi_map_buf() the
>>>>>>> physical address is just truncated to 32 bit in pfn_to_dma() (as part of
>>>>>>> dma_map_sg() call). This results in random crashes as DMA starts
>>>>>>> accessing random memory during SPI read.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMO, there may be more undiscovered caveat with using dma_map_sg() for
>>>>>>> non kmalloc'd buffers and its better that spi-nor starts handling these
>>>>>>> buffers instead of relying on spi_map_msg() and working around every
>>>>>>> time something pops up.
>>>>>>>    
>>>>>> Ok, I had a closer look at the SPI framework, and it seems there's a
>>>>>> way to tell to the core that a specific transfer cannot use DMA
>>>>>> (->can_dam()). The first thing you should do is fix the spi-davinci
>>>>>> driver:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1/ implement ->can_dma()
>>>>>> 2/ patch davinci_spi_bufs() to take the decision to do DMA or not on a
>>>>>>    per-xfer basis and not on a per-device basis
>>>>>>    
>>>> This would lead to poor perf defeating entire purpose of using DMA.  
>>> Hm, that's not really true. For all cases where you have a DMA-able
>>> buffer it would still use DMA. For other cases (like the UBI+SPI-NOR
>>> case we're talking about here), yes, it will be slower, but slower is
>>> still better than buggy.
>>> So, in any case, I think the fixes pointed by Frode are needed.  
>> Also, I think the UBIFS layer only uses vmalloc'ed buffers during
>> mount/unmount and not for read/write, so the performance hit is not
>> that big.
> It's a bit more complicated than that. You may have operations running
> in background that are using those big vmalloc-ed buffers at runtime.
> To optimize things, we really need to split LEB/PEB buffers into
> multiple ->max_write_size (or ->min_io_size) kmalloc-ed buffers.
>
>> In most cases the buffer is the size of the erase block, but I've seen
>> vmalloc'ed buffer of size only 11 bytes ! So, to optimize this, the
>> best solution is probably to change how the UBIFS layer is using
>> vmalloc'ed vs kmalloc'ed buffers, since vmalloc'ed should only be used
>> for large (> 128K) buffers.
> Hm, the buffer itself is bigger than 11 bytes, it's just that the
> same buffer is used in different use cases, and sometime we're only
> partially filling it.
There are at least one place in the UBIFS layer where a small buffer is vmalloc'ed:

static int read_ltab(struct ubifs_info *c)
{
    int err;
    void *buf;

    buf = vmalloc(c->ltab_sz);
    if (!buf)
        return -ENOMEM;
    err = ubifs_leb_read(c, c->ltab_lnum, buf, c->ltab_offs, c->ltab_sz, 1);
    if (err)
        goto out;
    err = unpack_ltab(c, buf);
out:
    vfree(buf);
    return err;
}

On my board, the buffer size is 11 bytes.

Frode


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html