Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2022 04:26:47 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc:     Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>, dongli.zhang@oracle.com,
        ak@linux.intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        alexander.sverdlin@nokia.com, andi.kleen@intel.com, bp@alien8.de,
        bp@suse.de, cminyard@mvista.com, corbet@lwn.net,
        damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
        hch@infradead.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        joe.jin@oracle.com, joe@perches.com, keescook@chromium.org,
        kirill.shutemov@intel.com, kys@microsoft.com,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
        ltykernel@gmail.com, michael.h.kelley@microsoft.com,
        mingo@redhat.com, m.szyprowski@samsung.com, parri.andrea@gmail.com,
        paulmck@kernel.org, pmladek@suse.com, rdunlap@infradead.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
        Tianyu.Lan@microsoft.com, tsbogend@alpha.franken.de,
        vkuznets@redhat.com, wei.liu@kernel.org, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] swiotlb: panic if nslabs is too small
Message-ID: <YwNn92WP3rP4ylZu@infradead.org>
References: <20220611082514.37112-5-dongli.zhang@oracle.com>
 <20220820012031.1285979-1-yuzhao@google.com>
 <f8c743d8-fcbe-4ef7-5f86-d63086552ffd@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f8c743d8-fcbe-4ef7-5f86-d63086552ffd@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 10:49:09AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> Hmm, it's possible this might be quietly fixed by 20347fca71a3, but either
> way I'm not sure why we would need to panic *before* we've even tried to
> allocate anything, when we could simply return with no harm done? If we've
> ended up calculating (or being told) a buffer size which is too small to be
> usable, that should be no different to disabling SWIOTLB entirely.

Hmm.  I think this might be a philosophical question, but I think
failing the boot with a clear error report for a configuration that is
supposed to work but can't is way better than just panicing later on.

> Historically, passing "swiotlb=1" on the command line has been used to save
> memory when the user knows SWIOTLB isn't needed. That should definitely not
> be allowed to start panicking.

I've never seen swiotlb=1 advertized as a way to disable swiotlb.
That's always been swiotlb=noforce, which cleanly disables it.