Re: [PATCH 2/6] PCI/MSI: add hooks to populate the msi_domain field

[Jiang Liu]

On 2014/12/9 22:27, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 09/12/14 14:11, Jiang Liu wrote:
>> On 2014/12/9 22:03, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> Hi Gerry,
>>>
>>> On 09/12/14 12:47, Jiang Liu wrote:
>>>> On 2014/12/9 20:12, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>> Yijing,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/12/14 11:57, Yijing Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>>> +void __weak pcibios_set_phb_msi_domain(struct pci_bus *bus)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +static void pci_set_bus_msi_domain(struct pci_bus *bus)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> +	struct pci_dev *bridge = bus->self;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +	if (!bridge)
>>>>>>>>> +		pcibios_set_phb_msi_domain(bus);
>>>>>>>>> +	else
>>>>>>>>> +		dev_set_msi_domain(&bus->dev, dev_get_msi_domain(&bridge->dev));
>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Marc, we can not assume pci devices under same phb share the same msi irq domain,
>>>>>>>> now in x86, pci devices under the same phb may associate different msi irq domain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Marc,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, this is not supposed to be a perfect solution yet, but instead a
>>>>>>> basis for discussion. What I'd like to find out is:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - What is the minimum granularity for associating a device with its MSI
>>>>>>> domain in existing platforms?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PCI device, after Gerry's msi irq domain patchset which now in linux-next,
>>>>>> in x86, we will find msi irq domain by pci_dev.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you *really* associating the MSI domain on a per pci-device basis?
>>>>> That is, you have devices on the same PCI bus talking to different MSI hw?
>>>> Hi Marc,
>>>> 	This is a little wild:(
>>>> 	On x86 platform with Intel VT-d(not the case for AMD-v),
>>>> interrupt remapping is tight to DMA remapping (IOMMU) unit.
>>>> For most common cases, IOMMU unit manages PCI bus and its sub-hierarchy.
>>>> But it may also manage a specific PCI device. This is typically used to
>>>> provide QoS for audio device by using dedicated IOMMU unit to avoid
>>>> resource contention on DMA remapping tables. BIOS uses ACPI table to
>>>> report PCI bus/device to IOMMU unit mapping relationship. (To be honest,
>>>> I have no really experience with such a hardware platform yet, just for
>>>> theoretical analysis)
>>>> 	On the other hand, we now support hierarchy irqdomain. So to
>>>> support per-PCI IOMMU unit case, we need maintain irqdomain at PCI
>>>> device level.
>>>> 	This piece of code from your [4/6] is flexible enough, which
>>>> retrieves msi_domain from PCI device, then fallback to PCI bus,
>>>> then fallback to platform specific method.
>>>> 	domain = dev_get_msi_domain(&dev->dev);
>>>> 	if (!domain && dev->bus->msi)
>>>>  		domain = dev->bus->msi->domain;
>>>>  	if (!domain)
>>>>  		domain = arch_get_pci_msi_domain(dev);
>>>
>>> OK. But what I'd really like to see is a way to setup the
>>> device<->domain binding as early as possible, without having to use more
>>> conditional code in pci_msi_get_domain.
>>>
>>> IOW, can we do something similar to what pci_set_bus_msi_domain and
>>> pci_set_msi_domain do in this patch?
>> Hi Marc,
>> 	I have checked x86 code, we could set pci_dev->msi_domain
>> when creating PCI devices, just need to find some hook points
>> into PCI core next step. If arch code doesn't set pci_dev->msi_domain,
>> PCI MSI core may provide a default way to set pci_dev->msi_domain.
>> This may make the implementation simpler, I guess:)
> 
> Right. So following your earlier suggestion, I could make
> pci_set_msi_domain a weak symbol and let arch code override this.
> 
> My preference would have been to have arch code to create a set of
> arch-independent data structures describing the topology, and use that
> for everything, but maybe that's a bit ambitious for a start.
> 
> I'll rework the series to make the symbols weak.
Hi Marc,
	I think we may not need the weak symbol at all. With following
draft patch, the PCI MSI core may simply do:
	if (pci_dev->dev.msi_domain == NULL)
		dev_set_msi_domain(&dev->dev,
			 dev_get_msi_domain(&dev->bus->dev));
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: the patch won't pass compilation, just to show the key idea:)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/msi.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/msi.c
index da163da5fdee..8147d25d4349 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/msi.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/msi.c
@@ -67,6 +67,23 @@ static struct irq_chip pci_msi_controller = {
        .flags                  = IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE,
 };

+struct irq_domain *x86_get_pci_msi_domain(struct pci_dev *dev)
+{
+       struct irq_domain *domain;
+       struct irq_alloc_info info;
+
+       init_irq_alloc_info(&info, NULL);
+       info.type = X86_IRQ_ALLOC_TYPE_MSI;
+       info.msi_dev = dev;
+       domain = irq_remapping_get_irq_domain(&info);
+       if (domain == NULL)
+               domain = msi_default_domain;
+       if (domain == NULL)
+               domain = ERR_PTR(-ENOSYS);
+
+       return domain;
+}
+
 int native_setup_msi_irqs(struct pci_dev *dev, int nvec, int type)
 {
        struct irq_domain *domain;
diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/common.c b/arch/x86/pci/common.c
index 7b20bccf3648..a26f30a8bb8f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/pci/common.c
+++ b/arch/x86/pci/common.c
@@ -652,6 +652,9 @@ int pcibios_add_device(struct pci_dev *dev)
                pa_data = data->next;
                iounmap(data);
        }
+
+       dev->dev.msi_domain = x86_get_pci_msi_domain(dev);
+
        return 0;
 }


> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	M.
> 
--
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/