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:   Tue, 9 May 2023 09:16:35 +0200
From:   Petr =?UTF-8?B?VGVzYcWZw61r?= <petr@tesarici.cz>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Petr Tesarik <petrtesarik@huaweicloud.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
        David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com>,
        Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@amd.com>,
        "Steven Rostedt (Google)" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
        Ondrej Zary <linux@zary.sk>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
        Petr Tesarik <petr.tesarik.ext@huawei.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Won Chung <wonchung@google.com>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DRM DRIVERS" <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        "open list:DMA MAPPING HELPERS" <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
        Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Allow dynamic allocation of software IO TLB
 bounce buffers
Message-ID: <20230509091635.27450bd9@meshulam.tesarici.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20230426144439.5674f8bc@meshulam.tesarici.cz>
References: <cover.1681898595.git.petr.tesarik.ext@huawei.com>
        <20230426141520.0caf4386@meshulam.tesarici.cz>
        <2023042617-wobble-enlighten-9361@gregkh>
        <20230426144439.5674f8bc@meshulam.tesarici.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 14:44:39 +0200
Petr Tesa=C5=99=C3=ADk <petr@tesarici.cz> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>=20
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 14:26:36 +0200
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 02:15:20PM +0200, Petr Tesa=C5=99=C3=ADk wrote:=
 =20
> > > Hi,
> > >=20
> > > On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:03:52 +0200
> > > Petr Tesarik <petrtesarik@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > >    =20
> > > > From: Petr Tesarik <petr.tesarik.ext@huawei.com>
> > > >=20
> > > > The goal of my work is to provide more flexibility in the sizing of
> > > > SWIOTLB.
> > > >=20
> > > > The software IO TLB was designed with these assumptions:
> > > >=20
> > > > 1. It would not be used much, especially on 64-bit systems.
> > > > 2. A small fixed memory area (64 MiB by default) is sufficient to
> > > >    handle the few cases which require a bounce buffer.
> > > > 3. 64 MiB is little enough that it has no impact on the rest of the
> > > >    system.
> > > >=20
> > > > First, if SEV is active, all DMA must be done through shared
> > > > unencrypted pages, and SWIOTLB is used to make this happen without
> > > > changing device drivers. The software IO TLB size is increased to
> > > > 6% of total memory in sev_setup_arch(), but that is more of an
> > > > approximation. The actual requirements may vary depending on the
> > > > amount of I/O and which drivers are used. These factors may not be
> > > > know at boot time, i.e. when SWIOTLB is allocated.
> > > >=20
> > > > Second, other colleagues have noticed that they can reliably get
> > > > rid of occasional OOM kills on an Arm embedded device by reducing
> > > > the SWIOTLB size. This can be achieved with a kernel parameter, but
> > > > determining the right value puts additional burden on pre-release
> > > > testing, which could be avoided if SWIOTLB is allocated small and
> > > > grows only when necessary.   =20
> > >=20
> > > Now that merging into 6.4 has begun, what about this patch series? I'm
> > > eager to get some feedback (positive or negative) and respin the next
> > > version.   =20
> >=20
> > It's the merge window, we can't add new things that haven't been in
> > linux-next already. =20
>=20
> This is understood. I'm not asking for immediate inclusion.
>=20
> >   Please resubmit it after -rc1 is out. =20
>=20
> If you can believe that rebasing to -rc1 will be enough, then I will
> also try to believe I'm lucky. ;-)
>=20
> The kind of feedback I really want to get is e.g. about the extra
> per-device DMA-specific fields. If they cannot be added to struct
> device, then I'd rather start discussing an interim solution, because
> getting all existing DMA fields out of that struct will take a lot of
> time...

All right, 6.4-rc1 is out now. The patch series still applies cleanly.

Any comments what must be changed (if anything) to get it in?

Thanks,
Petr T