|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 00/21] Refine memblock API
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 2:36 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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!
>
Before the patch:
# cat /sys/kernel/debug/memblock/memory
0: 0x10000000..0x8fffffff
# cat /sys/kernel/debug/memblock/reserved
0: 0x10004000..0x10007fff
1: 0x10100000..0x11ab141f
2: 0x1fff1000..0x1fffcfff
3: 0x2ee40000..0x2ef53fff
4: 0x2ef56940..0x2ef56c43
5: 0x2ef56c48..0x2fffefff
6: 0x2ffff0c0..0x2ffff4d8
7: 0x2ffff500..0x2ffff55f
8: 0x2ffff580..0x2ffff703
9: 0x2ffff740..0x2ffff918
10: 0x2ffff940..0x2ffff9cf
11: 0x2ffffa00..0x2ffffa0f
12: 0x2ffffa40..0x2ffffa43
13: 0x2ffffa80..0x2ffffad5
14: 0x2ffffb00..0x2ffffb55
15: 0x2ffffb80..0x2ffffbd5
16: 0x2ffffc00..0x2ffffc4e
17: 0x2ffffc50..0x2ffffc6a
18: 0x2ffffc6c..0x2ffffce6
19: 0x2ffffce8..0x2ffffd02
20: 0x2ffffd04..0x2ffffd1e
21: 0x2ffffd20..0x2ffffd3a
22: 0x2ffffd3c..0x2ffffd56
23: 0x2ffffd58..0x2ffffe30
24: 0x2ffffe34..0x2ffffe4c
25: 0x2ffffe50..0x2ffffe68
26: 0x2ffffe6c..0x2ffffe84
27: 0x2ffffe88..0x2ffffea0
28: 0x2ffffea4..0x2ffffebc
29: 0x2ffffec0..0x2ffffedf
30: 0x2ffffee4..0x2ffffefc
31: 0x2fffff00..0x2fffff13
32: 0x2fffff28..0x2fffff4b
33: 0x2fffff50..0x2fffff84
34: 0x2fffff88..0x3fffffff
After the patch:
# cat /sys/kernel/debug/memblock/memory
0: 0x10000000..0x8fffffff
# cat /sys/kernel/debug/memblock/reserved
0: 0x10004000..0x10007fff
1: 0x10100000..0x11ab141f
2: 0x1fff1000..0x1fffcfff
3: 0x3eec0000..0x3efd3fff
4: 0x3efd6940..0x3efd6c43
5: 0x3efd6c48..0x3fffbfff
6: 0x3fffc0c0..0x3fffc4d8
7: 0x3fffc500..0x3fffc55f
8: 0x3fffc580..0x3fffc703
9: 0x3fffc740..0x3fffc918
10: 0x3fffc940..0x3fffc9cf
11: 0x3fffca00..0x3fffca0f
12: 0x3fffca40..0x3fffca43
13: 0x3fffca80..0x3fffca83
14: 0x3fffcac0..0x3fffcb15
15: 0x3fffcb40..0x3fffcb95
16: 0x3fffcbc0..0x3fffcc15
17: 0x3fffcc28..0x3fffcc72
18: 0x3fffcc74..0x3fffcc8e
19: 0x3fffcc90..0x3fffcd0a
20: 0x3fffcd0c..0x3fffcd26
21: 0x3fffcd28..0x3fffcd42
22: 0x3fffcd44..0x3fffcd5e
23: 0x3fffcd60..0x3fffcd7a
24: 0x3fffcd7c..0x3fffce54
25: 0x3fffce58..0x3fffce70
26: 0x3fffce74..0x3fffce8c
27: 0x3fffce90..0x3fffcea8
28: 0x3fffceac..0x3fffcec4
29: 0x3fffcec8..0x3fffcee0
30: 0x3fffcee4..0x3fffcefc
31: 0x3fffcf00..0x3fffcf1f
32: 0x3fffcf28..0x3fffcf53
33: 0x3fffcf68..0x3fffcf8b
34: 0x3fffcf90..0x3fffcfac
35: 0x3fffcfb0..0x3fffffff
36: 0x80000000..0x8fffffff
> 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.
>
This fixed the issue. Thank you
Tested-by: Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx> #imx6q-logicpd
> 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
|
 |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |