Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 19:42:02 +0200 From: Stefan Esser <se@FreeBSD.org> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: Jan Mikkelsen <janm@transactionware.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Patch: sym(4) "VTOBUS FAILED" panics on amd64, amd64/89550 Message-ID: <4514206A.8030601@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <451368CA.1030404@samsco.org> References: <003001c6ddff$278d52d0$d435083d@transactionware.com> <451368CA.1030404@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Scott Long schrieb: > Jan Mikkelsen wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Doug White wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Jan Mikkelsen wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Quick summary: sym(4) assumes on amd64 that virtual >>> >>> addresses provided by >>> >>>> bus_dmamem_alloc() have the same alignment as the physical >>> >>> addresses (in >>> >>>> this case, 2*PAGE_SIZE). They don't, and stuff breaks. >>> >>> This patch works >>> >>>> around that. >>> >>> Why is this? busdma supports alignment constraints; why not just set >>> the alignment to what you need it set at? I realize sym has its own >>> hand rolled DMA management craziness but alignment is something >>> busdma can take care of easily. >> >> >> sym has the alignment requirement on the virtual address because of the >> buddy memory allocation algorithm; changing how sym allocates memory >> internally would remove the requirement. The buddy algorithm with 2^13 >> bytes aligned on a 2^12 byte (but not a 2^13 byte) boundary can >> provide two >> chunks of 2^12 bytes but nothing greater than 2^12 bytes. >> >> The VTOBUS failure is caused by the buddy implementation making alignment >> assumptions which aren't true, and then getting the virtual addresses >> wrong. >> >> Perhaps I'm just doing something wrong with bus_dma. I believe I set the >> alignment requirements to be 2*PAGE_SIZE, and this is what I see for the >> physical address. However the virtual address seems to only be page >> aligned. >> >> I can't see any mention of virtual address alignment in the bus_dma man >> page. Can it take care of virtual address alignment? If so, how? >> > > busdma makes no guarantees on virtual addresses. > > Sigh, sorry I never got this fixed. The custom memory allocator made me > unhappy, and I never had time to dig into it. Do real docs on sym exist > somewhere? I'm not against sitting down and re-writing the physical > memory handling to both work and conform to the FreeBSD APIs. I've been the co-author of the ncr SCSI driver, on which sym is based (though not that particular code fragment). Since I know the structure and principals of the driver (and since I have and know the docs up to the 53c875, possibly also the 53c895), I'd probably be in a position to work on this with the least effort to get started. Only problem is that I do not have an amd64 system for testing ... I changed the private allocator in the sym driver to use contigmalloc, some time ago, but now I understand that there are stricter alignment requirements. For a start, a work-around could be committed, IMHO (even if it is ugly). The better approach is of course an extension of busdma to support aligned physical chunks as required by the driver. But I could also try to find a clean fix for the affected driver code. Is the Symbios SCSI controller still used that much that the effort required for a "clean" fix is well spent? Regards, STefan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4514206A.8030601>