Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To:     'Christoph Hellwig' <hch@lst.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
CC:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Toke_H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= <toke@toke.dk>,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@natalenko.name>,
        "Marek Szyprowski" <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        "Paolo Abeni" <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Olha Cherevyk <olha.cherevyk@gmail.com>,
        iommu <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [REGRESSION] Recent swiotlb DMA_FROM_DEVICE fixes break
 ath9k-based AP
Thread-Topic: [REGRESSION] Recent swiotlb DMA_FROM_DEVICE fixes break
 ath9k-based AP
Thread-Index: AQHYQm5IK/9JYQDqEEKfLChLw6SC36zUb2Ng
Date:   Mon, 28 Mar 2022 08:15:29 +0000
Message-ID: <eb33d98e65104d98abf9bd752787a9ea@AcuMS.aculab.com>
References: <1812355.tdWV9SEqCh@natalenko.name>
 <CAHk-=wiwz+Z2MaP44h086jeniG-OpK3c=FywLsCwXV7Crvadrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <27b5a287-7a33-9a8b-ad6d-04746735fb0c@arm.com>
 <CAHk-=wip7TCD_+2STTepuEZvGMg6wcz+o=kyFUvHjuKziTMixw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f88ca616-96d1-82dc-1bc8-b17480e937dd@arm.com>
 <20220324190216.0efa067f.pasic@linux.ibm.com> <20220325163204.GB16426@lst.de>
 <87y20x7vaz.fsf@toke.dk> <e077b229-c92b-c9a6-3581-61329c4b4a4b@arm.com>
 <CAHk-=wgKF5GfLXyVGDQDifh0MpMccDdmBvJBG3dt2+idCa5DzQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220328063723.GA29405@lst.de>
In-Reply-To: <20220328063723.GA29405@lst.de>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

From: Christoph Hellwig
> Sent: 28 March 2022 07:37
> 
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 11:46:09AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I think my list of three different sync cases (not just two! It's not
> > just about whether to sync for the CPU or the device, it's also about
> > what direction the data itself is taking) is correct.
> >
> > But maybe I'm wrong.
> 
> At the high level you are correct.  It is all about which direction
> the data is taking.  That is the direction argument that all the
> map/unmap/sync call take.  The sync calls then just toggle the ownership.
> You seem to hate that ownership concept, but I don't see how things
> could work without that ownership concept as we're going to be in
> trouble without having that.  And yes, a peek operation could work in
> some cases, but it would have to be at the cache line granularity.

I don't think it is really 'ownership' but more about who has
write access.
Only one side can have write access (to a cache line [1]) at any
one time.

Read access is different.
You need a 'synchronise' action to pick up newly written data.
This might be a data copy, cache flush or cache invalidate.
It only need affect the area that needs to be read - not
full buffer.
Partial cache flush/invalidate will almost certainly speed
up receipt of short network packets that are copied into a
new skb - leaving the old one mapped for another receive.

[1] The cache line size might be a property of the device
and dma subsystem, not just the cpu.
I have used hardware when the effective size was 1kB.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)