Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2005201628330.27502@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s>
 <20200520234520.22563-9-sstabellini@kernel.org> <83c1120f-fe63-dc54-7b82-15a91c748de8@xen.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.2005211247461.27502@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2005211247461.27502@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s>
From:   Julien Grall <julien.grall.oss@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 May 2020 21:17:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJ=z9a24gHgS1yrpzLmW35zPSR6F6NUvYJUyJ9p1+oLp7THD8w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] xen/arm: introduce phys/dma translations in xen_dma_sync_for_*
To:     Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
Cc:     =?UTF-8?B?SsO8cmdlbiBHcm/Dnw==?= <jgross@suse.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xilinx.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 21:08, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 May 2020, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > @@ -97,8 +98,7 @@ bool xen_arch_need_swiotlb(struct device *dev,
> > >                        phys_addr_t phys,
> > >                        dma_addr_t dev_addr)
> > >   {
> > > -   unsigned int xen_pfn = XEN_PFN_DOWN(phys);
> > > -   unsigned int bfn = XEN_PFN_DOWN(dev_addr);
> > > +   unsigned int bfn = XEN_PFN_DOWN(dma_to_phys(dev, dev_addr));
> > >             /*
> > >      * The swiotlb buffer should be used if
> > > @@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ bool xen_arch_need_swiotlb(struct device *dev,
> > >      * require a bounce buffer because the device doesn't support coherent
> > >      * memory and we are not able to flush the cache.
> > >      */
> > > -   return (!hypercall_cflush && (xen_pfn != bfn) &&
> > > +   return (!hypercall_cflush && !pfn_valid(bfn) &&
> >
> > I believe this change is incorrect. The bfn is a frame based on Xen page
> > granularity (always 4K) while pfn_valid() is expecting a frame based on the
> > Kernel page granularity.
>
> Given that kernel granularity >= xen granularity it looks like it would
> be safe to use PFN_DOWN instead of XEN_PFN_DOWN:
>
>   unsigned int bfn = PFN_DOWN(dma_to_phys(dev, dev_addr));

Yes. But is the change worth it though? pfn_valid() is definitely
going to be more expensive than the current check.

Cheers,