Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] PCI: of: Clear 64-bit flag for non-prefetchable memory below 4GB

[Punit Agrawal]

Hi Bjorn,

Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> [+cc Leonardo]
>
> On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 08:28:53PM +0900, Punit Agrawal wrote:
>> Some host bridges advertise non-prefetchable memory windows that are
>> entirely located below 4GB but are marked as 64-bit address memory.
>> 
>> Since commit 9d57e61bf723 ("of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource
>> flags for 64-bit memory addresses"), the OF PCI range parser takes a
>> stricter view and treats 64-bit address ranges as advertised while
>> before such ranges were treated as 32-bit.
>> 
>> A PCI root port modelled as a PCI-to-PCI bridge cannot forward 64-bit
>> non-prefetchable memory ranges. As a result, the change in behaviour
>> due to the commit causes failure to allocate 32-bit BAR from a 64-bit
>> non-prefetchable window.
>> 
>> In order to not break platforms where non-prefetchable memory ranges
>> lie entirely below 4GB, clear the 64-bit flag.
>
> I don't think we should care about the address width DT supplies for a
> host bridge window.  Prior to 9d57e61bf723, I don't think we *did*
> care because of_bus_pci_get_flags() threw away that information.
>
> My proposal for a commit log, including information about the problem
> report and a "Fixes:" tag:
>
>   Alexandru and Qu reported this resource allocation failure on
>   ROCKPro64 v2 and ROCK Pi 4B, both based on the RK3399:
>
>     pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0xfa000000-0xfbdfffff 64bit]
>     pci 0000:00:00.0: PCI bridge to [bus 01]
>     pci 0000:00:00.0: BAR 14: no space for [mem size 0x00100000]
>     pci 0000:01:00.0: reg 0x10: [mem 0x00000000-0x00003fff 64bit]
>
>   "BAR 14" is the PCI bridge's 32-bit non-prefetchable window, and our
>   PCI allocation code isn't smart enough to allocate it in a host
>   bridge window marked as 64-bit, even though this should work fine.
>
>   A DT host bridge description includes the windows from the CPU
>   address space to the PCI bus space.  On a few architectures
>   (microblaze, powerpc, sparc), the DT may also describe PCI devices
>   themselves, including their BARs.
>
>   Before 9d57e61bf723 ("of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource
>   flags for 64-bit memory addresses"), of_bus_pci_get_flags() ignored
>   the fact that some DT addresses described 64-bit windows and BARs.
>   That was a problem because the virtio virtual NIC has a 32-bit BAR
>   and a 64-bit BAR, and the driver couldn't distinguish them.

Many thanks for demystifying the motivation for 9d57e61bf723. Not being
familiar with the usage of DT to describe PCI devices I was missing this
context.

>   9d57e61bf723 set IORESOURCE_MEM_64 for those 64-bit DT ranges, which
>   fixed the virtio driver.  But it also set IORESOURCE_MEM_64 for host
>   bridge windows, which exposed the fact that the PCI allocator isn't
>   smart enough to put 32-bit resources in those 64-bit windows.
>
>   Clear IORESOURCE_MEM_64 from host bridge windows since we don't need
>   that information.
>
>   Fixes: 9d57e61bf723 ("of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses")
>   Reported-at: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/7a1e2ebc-f7d8-8431-d844-41a9c36a8911@xxxxxxx/
>   Reported-by: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@xxxxxxx>
>   Reported-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx>

Thank you for commit log - without all the pieces I was struggling to
clearly describe the details. And I missed the appropriate tags as
well. I've updated the commit log based on your suggestion.

>> Suggested-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/7a1e2ebc-f7d8-8431-d844-41a9c36a8911@xxxxxxx
>> Signed-off-by: Punit Agrawal <punitagrawal@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Tested-by: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  drivers/pci/of.c | 8 ++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/of.c b/drivers/pci/of.c
>> index 85dcb7097da4..1e45186a5715 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/of.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/of.c
>> @@ -353,6 +353,14 @@ static int devm_of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(struct device *dev,
>>  				dev_warn(dev, "More than one I/O resource converted for %pOF. CPU base address for old range lost!\n",
>>  					 dev_node);
>>  			*io_base = range.cpu_addr;
>> +		} else if (resource_type(res) == IORESOURCE_MEM) {
>> +			if (!(res->flags & IORESOURCE_PREFETCH)) {
>> +				if (res->flags & IORESOURCE_MEM_64)
>> +					if (!upper_32_bits(range.pci_addr + range.size - 1)) {
>> +						dev_warn(dev, "Clearing 64-bit flag for non-prefetchable memory below 4GB\n");
>> +						res->flags &= ~IORESOURCE_MEM_64;
>> +					}
>> +			}
>
> Why do we need to check IORESOURCE_PREFETCH, IORESOURCE_MEM_64, and
> upper_32_bits()?  If I understand this correctly, prior to
> 9d57e61bf723, IORESOURCE_MEM_64 was *never* set here.  Isn't something
> like this sufficient?
>
>   } else if (resource_type(res) == IORESOURCE_MEM) {
>     res->flags &= ~IORESOURCE_MEM_64;
>   }

Based on the discussion in the original thread[0], I was working with
the assumption that we don't want to lose the IORESOURCE_MEM_64 flag
other than in the problem scenario, i.e., non-prefetchable memory below
4GB.

You suggestion is simpler and also solves the issue by effectively
reverting the impact of 9d57e61bf723 on BAR allocation. If there are no
objections I will take this approach for the next update.

To aid future readers I will also add the following comment -

    /*
     * PCI allocation cannot correctly allocate 32-bit non-prefetchable BAR
     * in host bridge windows marked as 64-bit.
     */

> I'm not sure we need a warning either.  We didn't warn before
> 9d57e61bf723, and there's nothing the user needs to do anyway.

The warning was a nudge (probably too subtle) to get the user to upgrade
their DT to drop the 64-bit marker on the host bridge window. With your
suggestion, the DT change is not needed anymore - though it may still be
worth dropping the 64-bit marker.

Thanks,
Punit

[0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/CAMj1kXGF_JmuZ+rRA55-NrTQ6f20fhcHc=62AGJ71eHNU8AoBQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/