RE: [PATCH] PCI: Probe bridge window attributes once at enumeration-time

From: Xuyandong (Yandong Xu, Euler5)
Date: Sun Feb 10 2019 - 20:57:44 EST

Next message: Lu Baolu: "Re: [PATCH v1 4/7] iommu/vt-d: Remove unnecessary local variable initializations"
Previous message: Joe Perches: "Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: use tab instead of spaces"
Next in thread: Michael S. Tsirkin: "Re: [PATCH] PCI: Probe bridge window attributes once at enumeration-time"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 05:02:26PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 05:47:32PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 04:43:33PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 01:02:54PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > > From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > pci_bridge_check_ranges() determines whether a bridge supports
> > > > > the optional I/O and prefetchable memory windows and sets the
> > > > > flag bits in the bridge resources. This *could* be done once
> > > > > during enumeration except that the resource allocation code
> > > > > completely clears the flag bits, e.g., in the
> > > > > pci_assign_unassigned_bridge_resources() path.
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem with pci_bridge_check_ranges() in the resource
> > > > > allocation path is that we may allocate resources after devices
> > > > > have been claimed by drivers, and pci_bridge_check_ranges()
> > > > > *changes* the window registers to determine whether they're
> > > > > writable. This may break concurrent accesses to devices behind the
> bridge.
> > > > >
> > > > > Add a new pci_read_bridge_windows() to determine whether a
> > > > > bridge supports the optional windows, call it once during
> > > > > enumeration, remember the results, and change
> > > > > pci_bridge_check_ranges() so it doesn't touch the bridge windows but
> sets the flag bits based on those remembered results.
> > > > >
> > > > > Link:
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/1506151482-113560-1-git-send-e
> > > > > mail-wangzhou1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Link:
> > > > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-12/msg02082.h
> > > > > tml
> > > > > Reported-by: xuyandong <xuyandong2@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Tested-by: xuyandong <xuyandong2@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Ofer Hayut <ofer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Roy Shterman <roys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Keith Busch <keith.busch@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Zhou Wang <wangzhou1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Applied to pci/enumeration for v5.1.
> > > >
> > > > This is fairly simple in concept, but doesn't meet the letter of
> > > > the restrictions in Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst,
> > > > so I didn't tag it for stable.
> > > >
> > > > Is there a compelling argument to mark it for stable?
> > >
> > > Well it's needed downstream.
> > > It's a bit above 100 lines with context. Is this what you mean?
> >
> > Yep, I should have been explicit about that.
> >
> > > If yes how about using my patch for stable as an alternative?
> > > The rules allow for equivalent patches.
> >
> > Well, yes, that would be a possibility.
> >
> > I would rather develop an argument for marking *this* patch for
> > stable. Even though it is technically too large, I think we could
> > make it work if we have compelling reasons.
> >
> > Those would need to be fleshed out a little more than "needed
> > downstream" -- something about the scenarios where this happens, what
> > the serious problem is, etc.
> >
> > The *ideal* thing would be to have an actual bugzilla.kernel.org
> > report of the problem with a way to reproduce it and dmesg
> > illustrating the problem.
>
> xuyandong would you like to take a stub at creating the bugzilla entry?
> If not let me know and I'll do it.
> Thanks!
>
Thanks, but I do not want to create the bugzilla entry.

>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/pci/probe.c | 52
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > drivers/pci/setup-bus.c | 45 ++++-------------------------------------
> > > > > include/linux/pci.h | 3 +++
> > > > > 3 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/probe.c b/drivers/pci/probe.c index
> > > > > 257b9f6f2ebb..2ef8b954c65a 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/pci/probe.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/probe.c
> > > > > @@ -348,6 +348,57 @@ static void pci_read_bases(struct pci_dev *dev,
> unsigned int howmany, int rom)
> > > > > }
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +static void pci_read_bridge_windows(struct pci_dev *bridge) {
> > > > > + u16 io;
> > > > > + u32 pmem, tmp;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + pci_read_config_word(bridge, PCI_IO_BASE, &io);
> > > > > + if (!io) {
> > > > > + pci_write_config_word(bridge, PCI_IO_BASE, 0xe0f0);
> > > > > + pci_read_config_word(bridge, PCI_IO_BASE, &io);
> > > > > + pci_write_config_word(bridge, PCI_IO_BASE, 0x0);
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + if (io)
> > > > > + bridge->io_window = 1;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * DECchip 21050 pass 2 errata: the bridge may miss an
> address
> > > > > + * disconnect boundary by one PCI data phase. Workaround:
> do not
> > > > > + * use prefetching on this device.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + if (bridge->vendor == PCI_VENDOR_ID_DEC && bridge->device
> == 0x0001)
> > > > > + return;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + pci_read_config_dword(bridge, PCI_PREF_MEMORY_BASE,
> &pmem);
> > > > > + if (!pmem) {
> > > > > + pci_write_config_dword(bridge,
> PCI_PREF_MEMORY_BASE,
> > > > > + 0xffe0fff0);
> > > > > + pci_read_config_dword(bridge,
> PCI_PREF_MEMORY_BASE, &pmem);
> > > > > + pci_write_config_dword(bridge,
> PCI_PREF_MEMORY_BASE, 0x0);
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + if (!pmem)
> > > > > + return;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + bridge->pref_window = 1;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if ((pmem & PCI_PREF_RANGE_TYPE_MASK) ==
> > > > > +PCI_PREF_RANGE_TYPE_64) {
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * Bridge claims to have a 64-bit prefetchable memory
> > > > > + * window; verify that the upper bits are actually
> > > > > + * writable.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + pci_read_config_dword(bridge,
> PCI_PREF_BASE_UPPER32, &pmem);
> > > > > + pci_write_config_dword(bridge,
> PCI_PREF_BASE_UPPER32,
> > > > > + 0xffffffff);
> > > > > + pci_read_config_dword(bridge,
> PCI_PREF_BASE_UPPER32, &tmp);
> > > > > + pci_write_config_dword(bridge,
> PCI_PREF_BASE_UPPER32, pmem);
> > > > > + if (tmp)
> > > > > + bridge->pref_64_window = 1;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > static void pci_read_bridge_io(struct pci_bus *child) {
> > > > > struct pci_dev *dev = child->self; @@ -1739,6 +1790,7 @@ int
> > > > > pci_setup_device(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > > > > pci_read_irq(dev);
> > > > > dev->transparent = ((dev->class & 0xff) == 1);
> > > > > pci_read_bases(dev, 2, PCI_ROM_ADDRESS1);
> > > > > + pci_read_bridge_windows(dev);
> > > > > set_pcie_hotplug_bridge(dev);
> > > > > pos = pci_find_capability(dev, PCI_CAP_ID_SSVID);
> > > > > if (pos) {
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
> > > > > index ed960436df5e..1941bb0a6c13 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
> > > > > @@ -735,58 +735,21 @@ int pci_claim_bridge_resource(struct pci_dev
> *bridge, int i)
> > > > > base/limit registers must be read-only and read as 0. */
> > > > > static void pci_bridge_check_ranges(struct pci_bus *bus) {
> > > > > - u16 io;
> > > > > - u32 pmem;
> > > > > struct pci_dev *bridge = bus->self;
> > > > > - struct resource *b_res;
> > > > > + struct resource *b_res =
> > > > > +&bridge->resource[PCI_BRIDGE_RESOURCES];
> > > > >
> > > > > - b_res = &bridge->resource[PCI_BRIDGE_RESOURCES];
> > > > > b_res[1].flags |= IORESOURCE_MEM;
> > > > >
> > > > > - pci_read_config_word(bridge, PCI_IO_BASE, &io);
> > > > > - if (!io) {
> > > > > - pci_write_config_word(bridge, PCI_IO_BASE, 0xe0f0);
> > > > > - pci_read_config_word(bridge, PCI_IO_BASE, &io);
> > > > > - pci_write_config_word(bridge, PCI_IO_BASE, 0x0);
> > > > > - }
> > > > > - if (io)
> > > > > + if (bridge->io_window)
> > > > > b_res[0].flags |= IORESOURCE_IO;
> > > > >
> > > > > - /* DECchip 21050 pass 2 errata: the bridge may miss an
> address
> > > > > - disconnect boundary by one PCI data phase.
> > > > > - Workaround: do not use prefetching on this device. */
> > > > > - if (bridge->vendor == PCI_VENDOR_ID_DEC && bridge->device
> == 0x0001)
> > > > > - return;
> > > > > -
> > > > > - pci_read_config_dword(bridge, PCI_PREF_MEMORY_BASE,
> &pmem);
> > > > > - if (!pmem) {
> > > > > - pci_write_config_dword(bridge,
> PCI_PREF_MEMORY_BASE,
> > > > > - 0xffe0fff0);
> > > > > - pci_read_config_dword(bridge,
> PCI_PREF_MEMORY_BASE, &pmem);
> > > > > - pci_write_config_dword(bridge,
> PCI_PREF_MEMORY_BASE, 0x0);
> > > > > - }
> > > > > - if (pmem) {
> > > > > + if (bridge->pref_window) {
> > > > > b_res[2].flags |= IORESOURCE_MEM |
> IORESOURCE_PREFETCH;
> > > > > - if ((pmem & PCI_PREF_RANGE_TYPE_MASK) ==
> > > > > - PCI_PREF_RANGE_TYPE_64) {
> > > > > + if (bridge->pref_64_window) {
> > > > > b_res[2].flags |= IORESOURCE_MEM_64;
> > > > > b_res[2].flags |= PCI_PREF_RANGE_TYPE_64;
> > > > > }
> > > > > }
> > > > > -
> > > > > - /* double check if bridge does support 64 bit pref */
> > > > > - if (b_res[2].flags & IORESOURCE_MEM_64) {
> > > > > - u32 mem_base_hi, tmp;
> > > > > - pci_read_config_dword(bridge,
> PCI_PREF_BASE_UPPER32,
> > > > > - &mem_base_hi);
> > > > > - pci_write_config_dword(bridge,
> PCI_PREF_BASE_UPPER32,
> > > > > - 0xffffffff);
> > > > > - pci_read_config_dword(bridge,
> PCI_PREF_BASE_UPPER32, &tmp);
> > > > > - if (!tmp)
> > > > > - b_res[2].flags &= ~IORESOURCE_MEM_64;
> > > > > - pci_write_config_dword(bridge,
> PCI_PREF_BASE_UPPER32,
> > > > > - mem_base_hi);
> > > > > - }
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > /* Helper function for sizing routines: find first available
> > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/pci.h b/include/linux/pci.h index
> > > > > 65f1d8c2f082..40b327b814aa 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/linux/pci.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/linux/pci.h
> > > > > @@ -373,6 +373,9 @@ struct pci_dev {
> > > > > bool match_driver; /* Skip attaching
> driver */
> > > > >
> > > > > unsigned int transparent:1; /* Subtractive decode
> bridge */
> > > > > + unsigned int io_window:1; /* Bridge has I/O
> window */
> > > > > + unsigned int pref_window:1; /* Bridge has pref
> mem window */
> > > > > + unsigned int pref_64_window:1; /* Pref mem window
> is 64-bit */
> > > > > unsigned int multifunction:1; /* Multi-function device */
> > > > >
> > > > > unsigned int is_busmaster:1; /* Is busmaster */
> > > > >

Next message: Lu Baolu: "Re: [PATCH v1 4/7] iommu/vt-d: Remove unnecessary local variable initializations"
Previous message: Joe Perches: "Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: use tab instead of spaces"
Next in thread: Michael S. Tsirkin: "Re: [PATCH] PCI: Probe bridge window attributes once at enumeration-time"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]