MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20140113171412.dd90c020b103f4a686f8dc34@linux-foundation.org>
References: <20140114004509.27138.50345.stgit@viggo.jf.intel.com>
	<20140114004804.27138.18469.stgit@viggo.jf.intel.com>
	<20140113171412.dd90c020b103f4a686f8dc34@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:40:13 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4j4vfFfJ2V-+P+pA2Fcyn+homQVBtRjxmSTG1uMoOpkrg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] dma debug: introduce debug_dma_assert_idle()
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "dmaengine@vger.kernel.org" <dmaengine@vger.kernel.org>,
        Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>, Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        James Bottomley <JBottomley@parallels.com>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:48:47 -0800 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
>
>> Record actively mapped pages and provide an api for asserting a given
>> page is dma inactive before execution proceeds.  Placing
>> debug_dma_assert_idle() in cow_user_page() flagged the violation of the
>> dma-api in the NET_DMA implementation (see commit 77873803363c "net_dma:
>> mark broken").
>
> Some discussion of the overlap counter thing would be useful.

Ok, will add:

"The implementation also has the ability to count repeat mappings of
the same page without an intervening unmap.  This counter is limited
to the few bits of tag space in a radix tree.  This mechanism is added
to mitigate false negative cases where, for example, a page is dma
mapped twice and debug_dma_assert_idle() is called after the page is
un-mapped once."

>> --- a/include/linux/dma-debug.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/dma-debug.h
>>
>> ...
>>
>> +static void __active_pfn_inc_overlap(struct dma_debug_entry *entry)
>> +{
>> +     unsigned long pfn = entry->pfn;
>> +     int i;
>> +
>> +     for (i = 0; i < RADIX_TREE_MAX_TAGS; i++)
>> +             if (radix_tree_tag_get(&dma_active_pfn, pfn, i) == 0) {
>> +                     radix_tree_tag_set(&dma_active_pfn, pfn, i);
>> +                     return;
>> +             }
>> +     pr_debug("DMA-API: max overlap count (%d) reached for pfn 0x%lx\n",
>> +              RADIX_TREE_MAX_TAGS, pfn);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void __active_pfn_dec_overlap(struct dma_debug_entry *entry)
>> +{
>> +     unsigned long pfn = entry->pfn;
>> +     int i;
>> +
>> +     for (i = RADIX_TREE_MAX_TAGS - 1; i >= 0; i--)
>> +             if (radix_tree_tag_get(&dma_active_pfn, pfn, i)) {
>> +                     radix_tree_tag_clear(&dma_active_pfn, pfn, i);
>> +                     return;
>> +             }
>> +     radix_tree_delete(&dma_active_pfn, pfn);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int active_pfn_insert(struct dma_debug_entry *entry)
>> +{
>> +     unsigned long flags;
>> +     int rc;
>> +
>> +     spin_lock_irqsave(&radix_lock, flags);
>> +     rc = radix_tree_insert(&dma_active_pfn, entry->pfn, entry);
>> +     if (rc == -EEXIST)
>> +             __active_pfn_inc_overlap(entry);
>> +     spin_unlock_irqrestore(&radix_lock, flags);
>> +
>> +     return rc;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void active_pfn_remove(struct dma_debug_entry *entry)
>> +{
>> +     unsigned long flags;
>> +
>> +     spin_lock_irqsave(&radix_lock, flags);
>> +     __active_pfn_dec_overlap(entry);
>> +     spin_unlock_irqrestore(&radix_lock, flags);
>> +}
>
> OK, I think I see what's happening.  The tags thing acts as a crude
> counter and if the map/unmap count ends up imbalanced, we deliberately
> leak an entry in the radix-tree so it can later be reported via undescribed
> means.  Thoughts:

Certainly the leak will be noticed by debug_dma_assert_idle(), but
there's no guarantee that we trigger that check at the time of the
leak.  Hmm, dma_debug_entries would also leak in that case...

> - RADIX_TREE_MAX_TAGS=3 so the code could count to 7, with a bit of
>   futzing around.

Yes, if we are going to count might as well leverage the full number
space to help debug implementations that overlap severely.  I should
flesh out the error reporting to say that debug_dma_assert_idle() may
give false positives in the case where the overlap counter overflows.

> - from a style/readability point of view it is unexpected that
>   __active_pfn_dec_overlap() actually removes radix-tree items.  It
>   would be better to do:
>
>         spin_lock_irqsave(&radix_lock, flags);
>         if (__active_pfn_dec_overlap(entry) == something) {
>                 /*
>                  * Nice comment goes here
>                  */
>                 radix_tree_delete(...);
>         }
>         spin_unlock_irqrestore(&radix_lock, flags);
>

Yes, I should have noticed the asymmetry with the insert case, will fix.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/