Re: [PATCH] pci: pciehp update the slot bridge res to get big range for pcie devices

[Eric W. Biederman]

Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> 
>>> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>> Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
>>>>>> Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>>>>> Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>>>>>> Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I understand you need to touch I/O base/limit and Mem base/limit. But
>>>>>>>>> I don't understand why you also need to update bridge's BARs. Could
>>>>>>>>> you please explain a little more about it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just in case, my terminology "bridge's BARs" is Base Address Register
>>>>>>>>> 0 (offset 0x10) and Base Address Register 1 (offset 0x14) in the
>>>>>>>>> (type 1) configuration space header of the bridge.
>>>>>>>> i mean 0x1c, 0x20, 0x28
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> did not notice that bridge device's 0x10, 0x14 are used...
>>>>>>>> if port service need to use 0x10, 0x14, and the device is enabled, we
>>>>>>>> should touch 0x10, and 0x14.
>>>>>>> after check the code, if
>>>>>>> pci_bridge_assign_resources ==> pdev_assign_resources_sorted ==> 
>>>>>>> pdev_sort_resources
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> will not touch 0x10 and 0x14, if those resource is claimed by port
>>>>>>> service.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /* Sort resources by alignment */
>>>>>>> void pdev_sort_resources(struct pci_dev *dev, struct resource_list *head)
>>>>>>> {               int i;
>>>>>>>                         for (i = 0; i < PCI_NUM_RESOURCES; i++) {
>>>>>>>                 struct resource *r;
>>>>>>>                 struct resource_list *list, *tmp;
>>>>>>>                 resource_size_t r_align;
>>>>>>>                                 r = &dev->resource[i];
>>>>>>>                                         if (r->flags &
>>>>>>> IORESOURCE_PCI_FIXED)
>>>>>>>                         continue;
>>>>>>>                         if (!(r->flags) || r->parent)
>>>>>>>                         continue;
>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>> r->parent != NULL, will make it skip those two.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So -v3 should be safe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for the clarification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I still don't understand the whole picture of your set of
>>>>>> changes. Let me ask some questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my understanding of your set of changes, if there is a PCIe
>>>>>> switch with some hot-plug slots and all of those slots are empty,
>>>>>> I/O and Memory resources assigned by BIOS are all released at
>>>>>> the boot time. For example, suppose the following case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                bridge(A)
>>>>>>                   |
>>>>>>        -----------------------
>>>>>>        |                     |
>>>>>>     bridge(B)             bridge(C)
>>>>>>        |                     |
>>>>>>      slot(1)               slot(2)
>>>>>>      (empty)               (empty)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   bridge(A): P2P bridge for switch upstream port
>>>>>>   bridge(B): P2P bridge for switch downstream port
>>>>>>   bridge(C): P2P bridge for switch downstream port
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the above example, I/O and Mem resource assigned to bridge(A),
>>>>>> bridge(B) and bridge(C) are all released at the boot time. Correct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then, when a adapter card is hot-added to slot(1), I/O and Mem
>>>>>> resources enough for enabling the hot-added adapter card is assigned
>>>>>> to bridge(A), bridge(B) and the adapter card. Correct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then, when an another adpater card is hot-added to slot(2), we
>>>>>> need to assign enough resource to bridge(C) and the new card.
>>>>>> But bridge(A) doesn't have enough resource for bridge(C) and
>>>>>> the new card. In addition, all bridge(A) and bridge(B) and the
>>>>>> adapter card on slot(1) are already working. How do you assign
>>>>>> resource to bridge(C) and the card on slot(2)?
>>>>>>
>>>>> thanks, will update the patches to only handle leaf bridge, and don't touch min_size etc.
>>>> Tell me what is your expected behavior if I plug a bridge with hotplug
>>>> slots into a leaf hotplug slot?  Will you assign me enough resources so
>>>> that I can plug in additional devices?
>>> no.
>>>
>>> you need to plug device in those slots and then insert it into a leaf hotplug slot.
>> 
>> Scenario.
>> 
>> I insert a bridge with pci hotplug slots into a leaf hotplug slot.
>> Which adds more leave hotplug slots.
>> 
>> Since the bridge itself is no longer a leaf slot it's resources will not
>> get reassigned.
>> 
>> Then I will have no resources to assign to the leaves?
>
> so we still have your min_size code there.
>
> in your case: you need plug all card in your slots on that daughter
> card at first, and then insert the daughter card to leaf slot in the
> MB.

Operationally that is an impossibility.  I would not have multiple
layers of hotplug if I only needed a single layer.

Which means your patch would cause a regression in my setup.

> my setup is :
>
> system got 4 io chains. and will get slot: 
> 00:03.0  00:05.0 00:07.0 00:09.0
> 40:03.0  40:05.0 40:07.0 40:09.0
> 80:03.0  80:05.0 80:07.0 80:09.0
> c0:03.0  c0:05.0 c0:07.0 c0:09.0
>
> those are hanged on peer root buses directly. but bios assign to
> them every one get 8M, if user plug one card need 256M, then it will
> not work.
>
> with those two patches, could clear the resource assigned by BIOS,
> and get resource as needed. ( with mmio 64 bit )

Hmm.

Could you avoid reallocating resources until a pci device is plugged in
that has problems?

A lot of root bridges have important configuration registers that are
not in standard locations.  Which means in general we can not reprogram
root bridges successfully from linux.  At least not without code that
knows the root bridge magic.

You can almost solve your problem by simply saying: pci=hpmemsize=256M.
Which works except that allocating 4G of pci memory isn't very likely
to work.

One of the suggestions when I made my patch was to have a per port option
instead of a global minimum.  That is an option for your case.  But it
is not as elegant.

The truly elegant approach is to make certain the hibernate in the
drivers can handle bars being changed under them, hibernate everything
that needs renumbering and then bring them back.

Personally I think you should walk over to whomever did your firmware
and tell them they goofed.

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/