On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 05:49:59PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 1:08:29 PM CEST Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 03:53:46PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > > static int __init arm64_dma_init(void)
> > > {
> > > + if (swiotlb_force || max_pfn > (arm64_dma_phys_limit >> PAGE_SHIFT))
> > > + swiotlb = 1;
> > > +
> > > return atomic_pool_init();
> > > }
> >
> > So any platform with RAM larger than 4GB would still initialise swiotlb.
> > I wouldn't say it's an issue, 64MB is not a significant loss on such
> > systems.
> >
> > An alternative would be to defer the freeing until we are aware of all
> > possible dma masks for the populated devices (e.g. from DT), though I'm
> > not sure that's enough, drivers may try to change such masks when
> > probed.
>
> Right, this is a hard problem, because you can in theory have odd devices
> that require a DMA mask lower than the limit of ZONE_DMA.
I'm not sure what we can do about such devices even with swiotlb. The
bounce buffer is allocated from ZONE_DMA and currently it assumes a
32-bit mask from the start of RAM, so it is not guaranteed to support a
smaller mask. We may need to come up with some DT memory node attribute
to define the minimum DMA-able memory and restrict ZONE_DMA during early
boot but I would rather wait until we hit a real issue in practice.
Anyway, I plan to merge this patch as is, we can improve the logic in
the future if we have a better idea.
--
Catalin
