Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] PCI: Introduce pcibios_ignore_alignment_request
From: Shawn Anastasio <hidden>
Date: 2019-05-30 22:49:31
Also in:
linux-pci, lkml
On 5/29/19 10:39 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
On 28/05/2019 17:39, Shawn Anastasio wrote:quoted
On 5/28/19 1:27 AM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:quoted
On 28/05/2019 15:36, Oliver wrote:quoted
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 2:03 PM Shawn Anastasio [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Introduce a new pcibios function pcibios_ignore_alignment_request which allows the PCI core to defer to platform-specific code to determine whether or not to ignore alignment requests for PCI resources. The existing behavior is to simply ignore alignment requests when PCI_PROBE_ONLY is set. This is behavior is maintained by the default implementation of pcibios_ignore_alignment_request. Signed-off-by: Shawn Anastasio <redacted> --- drivers/pci/pci.c | 9 +++++++-- include/linux/pci.h | 1 + 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c index 8abc843b1615..8207a09085d1 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c@@ -5882,6 +5882,11 @@ resource_size_t __weakpcibios_default_alignment(void) return 0; } +int __weak pcibios_ignore_alignment_request(void) +{ + return pci_has_flag(PCI_PROBE_ONLY); +} + #define RESOURCE_ALIGNMENT_PARAM_SIZE COMMAND_LINE_SIZE static char resource_alignment_param[RESOURCE_ALIGNMENT_PARAM_SIZE] = {0}; static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(resource_alignment_lock);@@ -5906,9 +5911,9 @@ static resource_size_tpci_specified_resource_alignment(struct pci_dev *dev, p = resource_alignment_param; if (!*p && !align) goto out; - if (pci_has_flag(PCI_PROBE_ONLY)) { + if (pcibios_ignore_alignment_request()) { align = 0; - pr_info_once("PCI: Ignoring requested alignments (PCI_PROBE_ONLY)\n"); + pr_info_once("PCI: Ignoring requested alignments\n"); goto out; }I think the logic here is questionable to begin with. If the user has explicitly requested re-aligning a resource via the command line then we should probably do it even if PCI_PROBE_ONLY is set. When it breaks they get to keep the pieces. That said, the real issue here is that PCI_PROBE_ONLY probably shouldn't be set under qemu/kvm. Under the other hypervisor (PowerVM) hotplugged devices are configured by firmware before it's passed to the guest and we need to keep the FW assignments otherwise things break. QEMU however doesn't do any BAR assignments and relies on that being handled by the guest. At boot time this is done by SLOF, but Linux only keeps SLOF around until it's extracted the device-tree. Once that's done SLOF gets blown away and the kernel needs to do it's own BAR assignments. I'm guessing there's a hack in there to make it work today, but it's a little surprising that it works at all...The hack is to run a modified qemu-aware "/usr/sbin/rtas_errd" in the guest which receives an event from qemu (RAS_EPOW from /proc/interrupts), fetches device tree chunks (and as I understand it - they come with BARs from phyp but without from qemu) and writes "1" to "/sys/bus/pci/rescan" which calls pci_assign_resource() eventually:Interesting. Does this mean that the PHYP hotplug path doesn't call pci_assign_resource?I'd expect dlpar_add_slot() to be called under phyp and eventually pci_device_add() which (I think) may or may not trigger later reassignment.quoted
If so it means the patch may not break that platform after all, though it still may not be the correct way of doing things.We should probably stop enforcing the PCI_PROBE_ONLY flag - it seems that (unless resource_alignment= is used) the pseries guest should just walk through all allocated resources and leave them unchanged.
If we add a pcibios_default_alignment() implementation like was suggested earlier, then it will behave as if the user has specified resource_alignment= by default and SLOF's assignments won't be honored (I think). I guess it boils down to one question - is it important that we observe SLOF's initial BAR assignments? If not, the device tree modification that Sam found would work fine here. Otherwise, we need a way to honor the initial assignments from SLOF while still allowing custom alignments for hotplugged devices, either by deferring to the platform code like I do here, unsetting PCI_PROBE_ONLY in certain cases or by using IORESOURCE_PCI_FIXED like Bjorn suggested.
quoted
quoted
[c000000006e6f960] [c0000000005f62d4] pci_assign_resource+0x44/0x360 [c000000006e6fa10] [c0000000005f8b54] assign_requested_resources_sorted+0x84/0x110 [c000000006e6fa60] [c0000000005f9540] __assign_resources_sorted+0xd0/0x750 [c000000006e6fb40] [c0000000005fb2e0] __pci_bus_assign_resources+0x80/0x280 [c000000006e6fc00] [c0000000005fb95c] pci_assign_unassigned_bus_resources+0xbc/0x100 [c000000006e6fc60] [c0000000005e3d74] pci_rescan_bus+0x34/0x60 [c000000006e6fc90] [c0000000005f1ef4] rescan_store+0x84/0xc0 [c000000006e6fcd0] [c00000000068060c] bus_attr_store+0x3c/0x60 [c000000006e6fcf0] [c00000000037853c] sysfs_kf_write+0x5c/0x80quoted
IIRC Sam Bobroff was looking at hotplug under pseries recently so he might have something to add. He's sick at the moment, but I'll ask him to take a look at this once he's back among the livingquoted
diff --git a/include/linux/pci.h b/include/linux/pci.h index 4a5a84d7bdd4..47471dcdbaf9 100644 --- a/include/linux/pci.h +++ b/include/linux/pci.h@@ -1990,6 +1990,7 @@ static inline voidpcibios_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active) {} int pcibios_alloc_irq(struct pci_dev *dev); void pcibios_free_irq(struct pci_dev *dev); resource_size_t pcibios_default_alignment(void); +int pcibios_ignore_alignment_request(void); #ifdef CONFIG_HIBERNATE_CALLBACKS extern struct dev_pm_ops pcibios_pm_ops; -- 2.20.1