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;
Date:   Wed, 24 Jun 2020 00:23:57 +0000
From:   Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@amd.com>
To:     Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad@darnok.org>
Cc:     Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>, hch@lst.de,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com,
        x86@kernel.org, luto@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        dave.hansen@linux-intel.com, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, brijesh.singh@amd.com,
        Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] swiotlb: Adjust SWIOTBL bounce buffer size for SEV
 guests.
Message-ID: <20200624002357.GA9955@ashkalra_ubuntu_server>
References: <20191209231346.5602-1-Ashish.Kalra@amd.com>
 <20191220015245.GA7010@localhost.localdomain>
 <20200121200947.GA24884@ashkalra_ubuntu_server>
 <20200121205403.GC75374@Konrads-MacBook-Pro.local>
 <20200124230008.GA1565@ashkalra_ubuntu_server>
 <20200204193500.GA15564@ashkalra_ubuntu_server>
 <20200303170353.GC31627@char.us.oracle.com>
 <20200330222551.GA22743@ashkalra_ubuntu_server>
 <20200427185318.GA8253@ashkalra_ubuntu_server>
 <20200623133843.GA5499@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200623133843.GA5499@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Received: from ashkalra_ubuntu_server (165.204.77.1) by SN2PR01CA0013.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:10b6:804:2::23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3131.20 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 00:24:02 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [165.204.77.1]
X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-HT: Tenant
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 9f72a391-48aa-4504-38dc-08d817d4e5f1
X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: DM5PR12MB1610:
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-Forked: True
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <DM5PR12MB1610E538EB3EBB9D16F7B7E28E950@DM5PR12MB1610.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
X-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers: OLM:7219;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0444EB1997
X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: nus8OZH0E3PXx5/1cGl6vvVjXu/i+egSdYKsqjEBAyF3+134A6E0dwt1RKE6PzK94wYZi2ehYsGzNDfjaq4p8WZOu8ANO7NegQsr7YpFaQY1VCotHYJ/xYGm5XfcnoTHYjP3R5al1fXwamJLSG57EiWJv7mOlQd4gE8FOGvlBKu6XVPvfQMVDqCcCKP7p1hijDiRG7U68Jqro2H26dMU5crYzlLG46YBKUPrPeshKua1HzDvzFbtMnWdueZ0QYMCh+l4zawSyWrnBk06HBp9YuYU5MlV22/dgjexTUP+doo/2F7pAP5cDRkMmasPsAnUrxKvNL8QivRapwwZaXZhaQ==
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:255.255.255.255;CTRY:;LANG:en;SCL:1;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;H:DM5PR12MB1386.namprd12.prod.outlook.com;PTR:;CAT:NONE;SFTY:;SFS:(4636009)(366004)(39840400004)(136003)(346002)(396003)(376002)(956004)(316002)(6666004)(478600001)(1076003)(86362001)(2906002)(6916009)(5660300002)(33656002)(52116002)(9686003)(66946007)(55016002)(66476007)(66556008)(6496006)(83380400001)(33716001)(186003)(4326008)(8676002)(16526019)(44832011)(26005)(8936002)(7416002);DIR:OUT;SFP:1101;
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData: o0Is+fxl6sWNpWQ6Gz173q6U5byL56SQDqJ0PSilAK/pB1EG+0XVBmeMf6OUXrN8ew6Qx15hfOT3DHXSBArH2McImaBz6qVbtQA12HGv8f8EOwe9SNTemLycZAmSDehQM5nI489+ivP8ez767wkNmkhHY09ItnGJ0WGNJrfqdY9KWt4yIrOpDJrZpjWGMlMmuMtearD2Efhl7OCBUkkyOW7V/xKUGQXhWY5bwvNRsDP7kzWeLTQGg/ebzGorF5rXZ2vsiWqT5fKNFck77ge9f+9nHQS3fTxzwnXwpiPk5Fb4hIa2W6qfQ96E7SLrtrhp3IEKt/McugxkPZNCs2CiRGrTH6K7aAsafIGbLxUW+HVBoF520hfVMZkfc+5i7z2bfRBip/9JOtJ1IWRhZq4lYmAPoh3K4eL9GAOIgS5uDKOupzAKC6FXiIW28+w0xYmfV2N0sYujrCSuo8xv4UOxzeKGr/WfmfWaRXHcr5AgPG0=
X-OriginatorOrg: amd.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9f72a391-48aa-4504-38dc-08d817d4e5f1
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jun 2020 00:24:03.4940
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: J/h8lwwyHwGmLDJpyR/slx+FfrRzcU28Wu8O6dgvJjbUwQmr29bREtHuCIgLRdBGZoRZSQOv59aM+zXbPpC6gQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR12MB1610
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hello Konrad,

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 09:38:43AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 06:53:18PM +0000, Ashish Kalra wrote:
> > Hello Konrad,
> > 
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:25:51PM +0000, Ashish Kalra wrote:
> > > Hello Konrad,
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 12:03:53PM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 07:35:00PM +0000, Ashish Kalra wrote:
> > > > > Hello Konrad,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Looking fwd. to your feedback regarding support of other memory
> > > > > encryption architectures such as Power, S390, etc.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Ashish
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 11:00:08PM +0000, Ashish Kalra wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 03:54:03PM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Additional memory calculations based on # of PCI devices and
> > > > > > > > their memory ranges will make it more complicated with so
> > > > > > > > many other permutations and combinations to explore, it is
> > > > > > > > essential to keep this patch as simple as possible by 
> > > > > > > > adjusting the bounce buffer size simply by determining it
> > > > > > > > from the amount of provisioned guest memory.
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > >> Please rework the patch to:
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > >>  - Use a log solution instead of the multiplication.
> > > > > > >>    Feel free to cap it at a sensible value.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Ok.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > >>  - Also the code depends on SWIOTLB calling in to the
> > > > > > >>    adjust_swiotlb_default_size which looks wrong.
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > >>    You should not adjust io_tlb_nslabs from swiotlb_size_or_default.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > >>    That function's purpose is to report a value.
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > >>  - Make io_tlb_nslabs be visible outside of the SWIOTLB code.
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > >>  - Can you utilize the IOMMU_INIT APIs and have your own detect which would
> > > > > > >>    modify the io_tlb_nslabs (and set swiotbl=1?).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This seems to be a nice option, but then IOMMU_INIT APIs are
> > > > > > x86-specific and this swiotlb buffer size adjustment is also needed
> > > > > > for other memory encryption architectures like Power, S390, etc.
> > > > 
> > > > Oh dear. That I hadn't considered.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > >>    Actually you seem to be piggybacking on pci_swiotlb_detect_4gb - so
> > > > > > >>    perhaps add in this code ? Albeit it really should be in it's own
> > > > > > >>    file, not in arch/x86/kernel/pci-swiotlb.c
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Actually, we piggyback on pci_swiotlb_detect_override which sets
> > > > > > swiotlb=1 as x86_64_start_kernel() and invocation of sme_early_init()
> > > > > > forces swiotlb on, but again this is all x86 architecture specific.
> > > > 
> > > > Then it looks like the best bet is to do it from within swiotlb_init?
> > > > We really can't do it from swiotlb_size_or_default - that function
> > > > should just return a value and nothing else.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Actually, we need to do it in swiotlb_size_or_default() as this gets called by
> > > reserve_crashkernel_low() in arch/x86/kernel/setup.c and used to
> > > reserve low crashkernel memory. If we adjust swiotlb size later in
> > > swiotlb_init() which gets called later than reserve_crashkernel_low(),
> > > then any swiotlb size changes/expansion will conflict/overlap with the
> > > low memory reserved for crashkernel.
> > > 
> > and will also potentially cause SWIOTLB buffer allocation failures.
> > 
> > Do you have any feedback, comments on the above ?
> 
> 
> The init boot chain looks like this:
> 
> initmem_init
> 	pci_iommu_alloc
> 		-> pci_swiotlb_detect_4gb
> 		-> swiotlb_init
> 
> reserve_crashkernel
> 	reserve_crashkernel_low
> 		-> swiotlb_size_or_default
> 		..
> 
> 
> (rootfs code):
> 	pci_iommu_init
> 		-> a bunch of the other IOMMU late_init code gets called..
> 		->  pci_swiotlb_late_init 
> 
> I have to say I am lost to how your patch fixes "If we adjust swiolb
> size later .. then any swiotlb size .. will overlap with the low memory
> reserved for crashkernel"?
> 

Actually as per the boot flow :

setup_arch() calls reserve_crashkernel() and pci_iommu_alloc() is
invoked through mm_init()/mem_init() and not via initmem_init().

start_kernel:
...
setup_arch()
	reserve_crashkernel
		reserve_crashkernel_low
			-> swiotlb_size_or_default

...
...
mm_init()
	mem_init()
		pci_iommu_alloc
			-> pci_swiotlb_detect_4gb
			-> swiotlb_init

So as per the above boot flow, reserve_crashkernel() can get called
before swiotlb_detect/init, and hence, if we don't fixup or adjust
the SWIOTLB buffer size in swiotlb_size_or_default() then crash kernel
will reserve memory which will conflict/overlap with any SWIOTLB bounce
buffer allocated memory (adjusted or fixed up later).

Therefore, we need to adjust/fixup SWIOTLB bounce buffer memory in
swiotlb_size_or_default() function itself, before swiotlb detect/init
funtions get invoked.

Thanks,
Ashish

> Or are you saying that 'reserve_crashkernel_low' is the _culprit_ and it
> is the one changing the size? And hence it modifying the swiotlb size
> will fix this problem? Aka _before_ all the other IOMMU get their hand
> on it?
> 
> If so why not create an
> IOMMU_INIT(crashkernel_adjust_swiotlb,pci_swiotlb_detect_override,
> NULL, NULL);
> 
> And crashkernel_adjust_swiotlb would change the size of swiotlb buffer
> if conditions are found to require it.
> 
> You also may want to put a #define DEBUG in arch/x86/kernel/pci-iommu_table.c
> to check out whether the tree structure of IOMMU entries is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> But still I am lost - if say the AMD one does decide for unknown reason
> to expand the SWIOTLB you are still stuck with the 'overlap with
> the low memory reserved' or so.
> 
> Perhaps add a late_init that gets called as the last one to validate
> this ? And maybe if the swiotlb gets turned off you also take proper
> steps?
> 
> > As such i feel, this patch is complete otherwise and can be included as
> > it is. 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Ashish