Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.w...@oracle.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 03:40:11PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Yinghai Lu <ying...@kernel.org> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Eric W. Biederman <ebied...@xmission.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> I meant we should detect failure to allocate bounce buffers in in
>> >> swiotlb_init() instead of panicing.
>> >>
>> >> I meant swiotlb_map_single() should either panic or simply fail.
>> >>
>> >> If I have read lib/swiotlb.c correctly the only place we allocate a
>> >> bounce buffer is in swiotlb_map_single. If there are more places we can
>> >> allocate bounce buffers those need to be handled as well.
>> >
>> > ok, will give it a try.
>>
>> please check if you are ok with attached.
>>
>> looks like it need more change of lines.
>
> The swiotlb_full check I don't believe is neccessary. You won't ever get
> to that unless swiotlb_map_page has at least provided a bounce buffer.
> And if the swiotlb_map_page does not have a bounce buffer it will exit
> with:
>
> + if (no_iotlb_memory)
>
> + return SWIOTLB_MAP_ERROR;
>
> +
>
> which is dangerous. That is b/c there are drivers that don't use the
> dma_mapping_error check (so check the bus address after calling
> pci_map_*). This means they would try to do DMA on 0xffffffff (yikes!).
>
> That is reason the failback (v_overflow_buffer) is still in
> usage - b/c we have drivers that might just do this and this is the last
> resort for them. And until those drivers are fixed - we _need_ this
> fallback to work.
So instead we need to say?
+ if (no_iotlb_memory)
+ panic("Cannot allocate SWIOTLB buffer");
+
Which is just making the panic a little later than it used to be and
seems completely reasonable.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
