[PATCH 09/15] swiotlb: make the swiotlb_init interface more useful

[Nathan Chancellor]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 07:57:43PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 10:46:54AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 07:34:41PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Can you send me the full dmesg and the content of
> > > /sys/kernel/debug/swiotlb/io_tlb_nslabs for a good and a bad boot?
> > 
> > Sure thing, they are attached! If there is anything else I can provide
> > or test, I am more than happy to do so.
> 
> Nothing interesting.  But the performance numbers almost look like
> swiotlb=force got ignored before (even if I can't explain why).

I was able to get my performance back with this diff but I don't know if
this is a hack or a proper fix in the context of the series.

diff --git a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
index dfa1de89dc94..0bfb2fe3d8c5 100644
--- a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
+++ b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
@@ -276,7 +276,7 @@ void __init swiotlb_init_remap(bool addressing_limit, unsigned int flags,
 		      __func__, alloc_size, PAGE_SIZE);
 
 	swiotlb_init_io_tlb_mem(mem, __pa(tlb), nslabs, false);
-	mem->force_bounce = flags & SWIOTLB_FORCE;
+	mem->force_bounce = swiotlb_force_bounce || (flags & SWIOTLB_FORCE);
 
 	if (flags & SWIOTLB_VERBOSE)
 		swiotlb_print_info();

> Do you get a similar performance with the new kernel without
> swiotlb=force as the old one with that argument by any chance?

I'll see if I can test that, as I am not sure I have control over those
cmdline arguments.

Cheers,
Nathan