> On Feb 11, 2020, at 10:32 AM, Robin Murphy <robin.mur...@arm.com> wrote:
> On 11/02/2020 3:24 pm, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>> On Feb 11, 2020, at 10:12 AM, Robin Murphy <robin.mur...@arm.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/02/2020 1:48 pm, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>>> Thank you for the detailed report!
>>>> There is a rich set of trace points available in the RPC/RDMA
>>>> implementation in 5.4/5.5, fwiw.
>>>> Please keep me in the loop, let me know if there is anything I can do to
>>> One aspect that may be worth checking is whether there's anywhere that
>>> assumes a successful return value from dma_map_sg() is always the same as
>>> the number of entries passed in - that's the most obvious way the iommu-dma
>>> code differs (legitimately) from the previous amd-iommu implementation.
>> net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/frwr_ops.c: frwr_map()
>> 317 mr->mr_nents =
>> 318 ib_dma_map_sg(ia->ri_id->device, mr->mr_sg, i,
>> 319 if (!mr->mr_nents)
>> 320 goto out_dmamap_err;
>> Should that rather be "if (mr->mr_nents != i)" ?
> No, that much is OK - the point is that dma_map_sg() may pack the DMA
> addresses such that sg_dma_len(sg) > sg->length - however, subsequently
> passing that mr->nents to dma_unmap_sg() in frwr_mr_recycle() (rather than
> the original value of i) looks at a glance like an example of how things may
> start to get out-of-whack.
Robin, your explanation makes sense to me. I can post a fix for this imbalance
later today for Andre to try.
iommu mailing list