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:   Fri, 19 Mar 2021 17:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
To:     Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com,
        sstabellini@kernel.org, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        "open list:SWIOTLB SUBSYSTEM" <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, opendmb@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: Qualify enabling of swiotlb_init()
In-Reply-To: <20210319195929.GA1346384@konrad-char-us-oracle-com.allregionaliads.osdevelopmeniad.oraclevcn.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2103191718210.439@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s>
References: <20210319040333.183827-1-f.fainelli@gmail.com> <20210319130731.GB2624@lst.de> <20210319195929.GA1346384@konrad-char-us-oracle-com.allregionaliads.osdevelopmeniad.oraclevcn.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 19 Mar 2021, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 02:07:31PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 09:03:33PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_ARM_LPAE
> > > +	if (swiotlb_force == SWIOTLB_FORCE ||
> > > +	    max_pfn > arm_dma_pfn_limit)
> > 
> > Does arm_dma_pfn_limit do the right thing even with the weirdest
> > remapping ranges?  Maybe a commen here would be useful.
> > 
> > > +		swiotlb_init(1);
> > > +	else
> > > +		swiotlb_force = SWIOTLB_NO_FORCE;
> > 
> > Konrad: what do you think of setting swiotlb_force to SWIOTLB_NO_FORCE
> > and only switching it to SWIOTLB_NORMAL when swiotlb_init* is called?
> > That kind makes more sense than forcing the callers to do it.
> > 
> > While we're at it, I think swiotlb_force should probably be renamed to
> > swiotlb_mode or somethng like that.
> 
> swiotlb_mode sounds good.
> 
> Also it got me thinking - ARM on Xen at some point was a bit strange, so not sure how
> the logic works here, Stefano?

There is nothing strange in regards to swiotlb_force. swiotlb_force is only used
in swiotlb-xen map_page to figure out whether:

- we actually have to use the swiotlb bounce buffer (this is the
  swiotlb_xen == SWIOTLB_FORCE case)
- or we can use the provided page directly for dma if other conditions
  are met (dma_capable, !range_straddles_page_boundary, ...)


I don't think that switching to "swiotlb_mode" would cause any issues.