Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen-swiotlb: exchange memory with Xen only
 when pages are contiguous
To:     Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@citrix.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Cc:     John Sobecki <john.sobecki@oracle.com>,
        "DONGLI.ZHANG" <dongli.zhang@oracle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org\"" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "konrad@kernel.org" <konrad@kernel.org>,
        "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
        Christoph Helwig <hch@lst.de>
References: <bb6d87b4-c371-c6c0-8c48-bc95df018ad1@oracle.com>
 <20181024130246.GA22616@localhost.localdomain>
 <83900cf4-690c-9725-d022-d427fdeb4f7d@oracle.com>
 <581cb7ea-3112-791d-918d-9bb887e4744f@oracle.com>
 <24a62522-1629-5d0b-398e-6d2c1a0b97f7@oracle.com>
 <922914c9-22db-c5d1-33da-d07691ebd7d7@oracle.com>
 <a47fabe8-53d1-47b8-0efc-f9f1e5b4898a@oracle.com>
 <45f5ffe8-3f48-4485-53f0-5a056be69b0c@oracle.com>
 <5b64850f-9142-0360-fe4e-9e7bc74d2368@oracle.com>
 <3e65208c-cb11-d918-00eb-012a97e56fec@oracle.com>
 <57e5593233c64dc0a36c7d4c750a1ed4@AMSPEX02CL03.citrite.net>
From:   Joe Jin <joe.jin@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <cd2efe58-4efb-cf5b-db6e-0bc7838bd9c9@oracle.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Oct 2018 07:12:46 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <57e5593233c64dc0a36c7d4c750a1ed4@AMSPEX02CL03.citrite.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 10/30/18 1:59 AM, Paul Durrant wrote:
>> On 10/25/18 11:56 AM, Joe Jin wrote:
>>> I just discussed this patch with Boris in private, his opinions(Boris,
>>> please correct me if any misunderstood) are:
>>>
>>> 1. With/without the check, both are incorrect, he thought we need to
>>>    prevented unalloc'd free at here.
>>> 2. On freeing, if upper layer already checked the memory was DMA-able,
>>>    the checking at here does not make sense, we can remove all checks.
>>> 3. xen_create_contiguous_region() and xen_destroy_contiguous_region()
>>>    to come in pairs.
>> I tried to added radix_tree to track allocating/freeing and I found some
>> memory only allocated but was not freed, I guess it caused by driver used
>> dma_pool, that means if lots of such requests, the list will consume lot
>> of memory for it. Will continue to work on it, if anyone have good idea
>> for it please let me know, I'd like to try it.
>>
> FWIW, in my Xen PV-IOMMU test patches, I have also tried keeping a list of ranges mapped for DMA and have discovered apparent issues with some drivers, particularly tg3, that seem to free mappings that have not been allocated (or possibly double-free). I've never fully tracked down the issue.

Call trace of first called xen_swiotlb_alloc_coherent(The pages never backed to Xen):

[   23.436333]  [<ffffffff814040c9>] xen_swiotlb_alloc_coherent+0x169/0x510
[   23.436623]  [<ffffffff811eb38d>] ? kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x1ed/0x280
[   23.436900]  [<ffffffff811d72af>] dma_pool_alloc+0x11f/0x260
[   23.437190]  [<ffffffff81537442>] ehci_qh_alloc+0x52/0x120
[   23.437481]  [<ffffffff8153b80f>] ehci_setup+0x2bf/0x8e0
[   23.437760]  [<ffffffff81476d06>] ? __dev_printk+0x46/0xa0
[   23.438042]  [<ffffffff814770b3>] ? _dev_info+0x53/0x60
[   23.438327]  [<ffffffff8153f620>] ehci_pci_setup+0xc0/0x5f0
[   23.438615]  [<ffffffff81519fcd>] usb_add_hcd+0x25d/0xaf0
[   23.438901]  [<ffffffff8152c9a6>] usb_hcd_pci_probe+0x406/0x520
[   23.439177]  [<ffffffff8153f486>] ehci_pci_probe+0x36/0x40
[   23.439469]  [<ffffffff8136e99a>] local_pci_probe+0x4a/0xb0
[   23.439752]  [<ffffffff8136fba5>] ? pci_match_device+0xe5/0x110
[   23.440027]  [<ffffffff8136fce1>] pci_device_probe+0xd1/0x120
[   23.440320]  [<ffffffff8147b13c>] driver_probe_device+0x20c/0x4d0
[   23.440599]  [<ffffffff8147b4eb>] __driver_attach+0x9b/0xa0
[   23.440879]  [<ffffffff8147b450>] ? __device_attach+0x50/0x50

Above was EHCI used DMA pool to allocate DMA memory.

During my testing, ~1000 entries was not freed, if more PCI devices
use DMA pool, the tree/list will have more entries, looks it's not a
good idea that use a list to track it.

Thanks,
Joe