Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 00/21] Refine memblock API

[Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Adam,

On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 07:14:13PM -0500, Adam Ford wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 8:33 AM Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I am attaching two logs.  I now the mailing lists will be unhappy, but
> >  don't want to try and spam a bunch of log through the mailing liast.
> > The two logs show the differences between the working and non-working
> > imx6q 3D accelerator when trying to run a simple glmark2-es2-drm demo.
> >
> > The only change between them is the 2 line code change you suggested.
> >
> > In both cases, I have cma=128M set in my bootargs.  Historically this
> > has been sufficient, but cma=256M has not made a difference.
> >
> 
> Mike any suggestions on how to move forward?
> I was hoping to get the fixes tested and pushed before 5.4 is released
> if at all possible

I have a fix (below) that kinda restores the original behaviour, but I
still would like to double check to make sure it's not a band aid and I
haven't missed the actual root cause.

Can you please send me your device tree definition and the output of 

cat /sys/kernel/debug/memblock/memory

and 

cat /sys/kernel/debug/memblock/reserved

Thanks!

From 06529f861772b7dea2912fc2245debe4690139b8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 10:14:17 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] mm: memblock: do not enforce current limit for memblock_phys*
 family

Until commit 92d12f9544b7 ("memblock: refactor internal allocation
functions") the maximal address for memblock allocations was forced to
memblock.current_limit only for the allocation functions returning virtual
address. The changes introduced by that commit moved the limit enforcement
into the allocation core and as a result the allocation functions returning
physical address also started to limit allocations to
memblock.current_limit.

This caused breakage of etnaviv GPU driver:

[    3.682347] etnaviv etnaviv: bound 130000.gpu (ops gpu_ops)
[    3.688669] etnaviv etnaviv: bound 134000.gpu (ops gpu_ops)
[    3.695099] etnaviv etnaviv: bound 2204000.gpu (ops gpu_ops)
[    3.700800] etnaviv-gpu 130000.gpu: model: GC2000, revision: 5108
[    3.723013] etnaviv-gpu 130000.gpu: command buffer outside valid
memory window
[    3.731308] etnaviv-gpu 134000.gpu: model: GC320, revision: 5007
[    3.752437] etnaviv-gpu 134000.gpu: command buffer outside valid
memory window
[    3.760583] etnaviv-gpu 2204000.gpu: model: GC355, revision: 1215
[    3.766766] etnaviv-gpu 2204000.gpu: Ignoring GPU with VG and FE2.0

Restore the behaviour of memblock_phys* family so that these functions will
not enforce memblock.current_limit.

Fixes: 92d12f9544b7 ("memblock: refactor internal allocation functions")
Reported-by: Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 mm/memblock.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
index 7d4f61a..c4b16ca 100644
--- a/mm/memblock.c
+++ b/mm/memblock.c
@@ -1356,9 +1356,6 @@ static phys_addr_t __init 
memblock_alloc_range_nid(phys_addr_t size,
                align = SMP_CACHE_BYTES;
        }
 
-       if (end > memblock.current_limit)
-               end = memblock.current_limit;
-
 again:
        found = memblock_find_in_range_node(size, align, start, end, nid,
                                            flags);
@@ -1469,6 +1466,9 @@ static void * __init memblock_alloc_internal(
        if (WARN_ON_ONCE(slab_is_available()))
                return kzalloc_node(size, GFP_NOWAIT, nid);
 
+       if (max_addr > memblock.current_limit)
+               max_addr = memblock.current_limit;
+
        alloc = memblock_alloc_range_nid(size, align, min_addr, max_addr, nid);
 
        /* retry allocation without lower limit */
-- 
2.7.4

 
> > adam
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 2:33 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:35:53PM -0500, Adam Ford wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:04 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 08:09:52AM -0500, Adam Ford wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 10:17 AM Fabio Estevam <festevam@xxxxxxxxx> 
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 9:17 AM Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx> 
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I tried cma=256M and noticed the cma dump at the beginning 
> > > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > change.  Do we need to setup a reserved-memory node like
> > > > > > > > imx6ul-ccimx6ulsom.dtsi did?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think so.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Were you able to identify what was the exact commit that caused 
> > > > > > > such regression?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was able to narrow it down the 92d12f9544b7 ("memblock: refactor
> > > > > > internal allocation functions") that caused the regression with
> > > > > > Etnaviv.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you please test with this change:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That appears to have fixed my issue.  I am not sure what the impact
> > > > is, but is this a safe option?
> > >
> > > It's not really a fix, I just wanted to see how exactly 92d12f9544b7 
> > > ("memblock:
> > > refactor internal allocation functions") broke your setup.
> > >
> > > Can you share the dts you are using and the full kernel log?
> > >
> > > > adam
> > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> > > > > index 7d4f61a..1f5a0eb 100644
> > > > > --- a/mm/memblock.c
> > > > > +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> > > > > @@ -1356,9 +1356,6 @@ static phys_addr_t __init 
> > > > > memblock_alloc_range_nid(phys_addr_t size,
> > > > >                 align = SMP_CACHE_BYTES;
> > > > >         }
> > > > >
> > > > > -       if (end > memblock.current_limit)
> > > > > -               end = memblock.current_limit;
> > > > > -
> > > > >  again:
> > > > >         found = memblock_find_in_range_node(size, align, start, end, 
> > > > > nid,
> > > > >                                             flags);
> > > > >
> > > > > > I also noticed that if I create a reserved memory node as was done 
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > imx6ul-ccimx6ulsom.dtsi the 3D seems to work again, but without it, 
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > was getting errors regardless of the 'cma=256M' or not.
> > > > > > I don't have a problem using the reserved memory, but I guess I am 
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > sure what the amount should be.  I know for the video decoding 
> > > > > > 1080p,
> > > > > > I have historically used cma=128M, but with the 3D also needing some
> > > > > > memory allocation, is that enough or should I use 256M?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > adam
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Sincerely yours,
> > > > > Mike.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sincerely yours,
> > > Mike.
> > >

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel