From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-04 13:49:21
10-Bit Tag capability, introduced in PCIe-4.0 increases the total Tag
field size from 8 bits to 10 bits.
This patchset is to enable 10-Bit tag for PCIe EP devices (include VF) and
RP device.
V6->V7:
- Rebased on v5.14-rc3.
- Change the "pci=disable_10bit_tag=" parameter to sysfs file to disable
10-Bit Tag Requester when need for p2pdma suggested by Leon.
- Fix comment for p2pdma 10-bit tag check.
V5->V6:
- Rebased on v5.14-rc2.
- Add Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig [off-list ref] in [PATCH V6 2/8].
- PCI: Add "pci=disable_10bit_tag=" parameter for peer-to-peer support.
- Add a 10-bit tag check in P2PDMA.
- Simplified implementation in [PATCH V6 6/8].
- Fix some comments in [PATCH V6 4/8].
V4->V5:
- Fix warning variable 'capa' is uninitialized.
- Fix warning unused variable 'pchild'.
V3->V4:
- Get the value of pcie_devcap2 in set_pcie_port_type().
- Add Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig [off-list ref] in [PATCH V4 1/6],
[PATCH V4 3/6], [PATCH V4 4/6], [PATCH V4 5/6].
- Fix some code style.
- Rebased on v5.13-rc6.
V2->V3:
- Use cached Device Capabilities Register suggested by Christoph.
- Fix code style to avoid > 80 char lines.
- Rename devcap2 to pcie_devcap2.
V1->V2: Fix some comments by Christoph.
- Store the devcap2 value in the pci_dev instead of reading it multiple
times.
- Change pci_info to pci_dbg to avoid the noisy log.
- Rename ext_10bit_tag_comp_path to ext_10bit_tag.
- Fix the compile error.
- Rebased on v5.13-rc1.
Dongdong Liu (9):
PCI: Use cached Device Capabilities Register
PCI: Use cached Device Capabilities 2 Register
PCI: Add 10-Bit Tag register definitions
PCI: Enable 10-Bit Tag support for PCIe Endpoint devices
PCI/IOV: Enable 10-Bit tag support for PCIe VF devices
PCI: Enable 10-Bit Tag support for PCIe RP devices
PCI/sysfs: Add a 10-Bit Tag sysfs file
PCI/IOV: Add 10-Bit Tag sysfs files for VF devices
PCI/P2PDMA: Add a 10-Bit Tag check in P2PDMA
Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-pci | 36 ++++++++++++-
drivers/media/pci/cobalt/cobalt-driver.c | 5 +-
drivers/net/ethernet/chelsio/cxgb4/cxgb4_main.c | 4 +-
drivers/pci/iov.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++
drivers/pci/p2pdma.c | 40 ++++++++++++++
drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
drivers/pci/pci.c | 14 ++---
drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c | 11 ++--
drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv_pci.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
drivers/pci/probe.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++-----
drivers/pci/quirks.c | 3 +-
include/linux/pci.h | 5 ++
include/uapi/linux/pci_regs.h | 5 ++
13 files changed, 347 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
--
2.7.4
From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-04 13:49:20
Add 10-Bit Tag register definitions for use in subsequen patches.
See the PCIe 5.0 spec section 7.5.3.15 and 9.3.3.2.
Signed-off-by: Dongdong Liu <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
---
include/uapi/linux/pci_regs.h | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-04 13:49:24
10-Bit Tag capability, introduced in PCIe-4.0 increases the total Tag
field size from 8 bits to 10 bits.
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 "Considerations for Implementing
10-Bit Tag Capabilities" Implementation Note.
For platforms where the RC supports 10-Bit Tag Completer capability,
it is highly recommended for platform firmware or operating software
that configures PCIe hierarchies to Set the 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable
bit automatically in Endpoints with 10-Bit Tag Requester capability. This
enables the important class of 10-Bit Tag capable adapters that send
Memory Read Requests only to host memory.
Signed-off-by: Dongdong Liu <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
---
drivers/pci/probe.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
include/linux/pci.h | 2 ++
2 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-04 13:49:24
It will make sense to store the pcie_devcap value in the pci_dev
structure instead of reading Device Capabilities Register multiple
times. The fisrt place to use pcie_devcap is in set_pcie_port_type(),
get the pcie_devcap value here, then use cached pcie_devcap in the
needed place.
Acked-by: Hans Verkuil <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Dongdong Liu <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
---
drivers/media/pci/cobalt/cobalt-driver.c | 5 +++--
drivers/pci/pci.c | 5 +----
drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c | 11 ++++-------
drivers/pci/probe.c | 11 +++--------
drivers/pci/quirks.c | 3 +--
include/linux/pci.h | 1 +
6 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
@@ -831,8 +829,7 @@ static int pcie_aspm_sanity_check(struct pci_dev *pdev)*DisableASPMforpre-1.1PCIedevice,wefollowMStouse*RBERbittodetermineifafunctionis1.1versiondevice*/-pcie_capability_read_dword(child,PCI_EXP_DEVCAP,®32);-if(!(reg32&PCI_EXP_DEVCAP_RBER)&&!aspm_force){+if(!(child->pcie_devcap&PCI_EXP_DEVCAP_RBER)&&!aspm_force){pci_info(child,"disabling ASPM on pre-1.1 PCIe device. You can enable it with 'pcie_aspm=force'\n");return-EINVAL;}
From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-04 13:49:26
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 says that if an Endpoint supports
sending Requests to other Endpoints (as opposed to host memory), the
Endpoint must not send 10-Bit Tag Requests to another given Endpoint
unless an implementation-specific mechanism determines that the Endpoint
supports 10-Bit Tag Completer capability. Add a 10bit_tag sysfs file,
write 0 to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind
the device if the peer device does not support the 10-Bit Tag Completer.
This will make P2P traffic safe. the 10bit_tag file content indicate
current 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable status.
Signed-off-by: Dongdong Liu <redacted>
---
Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-pci | 16 +++++++-
drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ Description: binary file containing the Vital Product Data for the device. It should follow the VPD format defined in PCI Specification 2.1 or 2.2, but users should consider- that some devices may have incorrectly formatted data. + that some devices may have incorrectly formatted data. If the underlying VPD has a writable section then the corresponding section of this file will be writable.
@@ -407,3 +407,17 @@ Description: The file is writable if the PF is bound to a driver that implements ->sriov_set_msix_vec_count().++What: /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../10bit_tag+Date: August 2021+Contact: Dongdong Liu <liudongdong3@huawei.com>+Description:+ If a PCI device support 10-Bit Tag Requester, will create the+ 10bit_tag sysfs file. The file is readable, the value+ indicate current 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable.+ 1 - enabled, 0 - disabled.++ The file is also writeable, the value only accept by write 0+ to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind+ the deivce. The typical use case is for p2pdma when the peer+ device does not support 10-BIT Tag Completer.
From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-04 13:49:27
PCIe spec 5.0r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 implementation note, In configurations
where a Requester with 10-Bit Tag Requester capability needs to target
multiple Completers, one needs to ensure that the Requester sends 10-Bit
Tag Requests only to Completers that have 10-Bit Tag Completer capability.
So we enable 10-Bit Tag Requester for root port only when the devices
under the root port support 10-Bit Tag Completer.
Signed-off-by: Dongdong Liu <redacted>
---
drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv_pci.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 69 insertions(+)
@@ -90,6 +90,72 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops pcie_portdrv_pm_ops = {#define PCIE_PORTDRV_PM_OPS NULL#endif /* !PM */+staticintpci_10bit_tag_comp_support(structpci_dev*dev,void*data)+{+bool*support=(bool*)data;++if(!pci_is_pcie(dev)){+*support=false;+return1;+}++/*+*PCIespec5.0r1.0section2.2.6.2implementationnote.+*ForconfigurationswhereaRequesterwith10-BitTagRequester+*capabilitytargetsCompleterswheresomedoandsomedonothave+*10-BitTagCompletercapability,howtheRequesterdetermineswhich+*NPRsinclude10-BitTagsisoutsidethescopeofthisspecification.+*Sowedonotconsiderhotplugscenario.+*/+if(dev->is_hotplug_bridge){+*support=false;+return1;+}++if(!(dev->pcie_devcap2&PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_10BIT_TAG_COMP)){+*support=false;+return1;+}++return0;+}++staticvoidpci_configure_rp_10bit_tag(structpci_dev*dev)+{+boolsupport=true;++if(dev->subordinate==NULL)+return;++/* If no devices under the root port, no need to enable 10-Bit Tag. */+if(list_empty(&dev->subordinate->devices))+return;++pci_10bit_tag_comp_support(dev,&support);+if(!support)+return;++/*+*PCIespec5.0r1.0section2.2.6.2implementationnote.+*InconfigurationswhereaRequesterwith10-BitTagRequester+*capabilityneedstotargetmultipleCompleters,oneneedstoensure+*thattheRequestersends10-BitTagRequestsonlytoCompleters+*thathave10-BitTagCompletercapability.Soweenable10-BitTag+*Requesterforrootportonlywhenthedevicesundertherootport+*support10-BitTagCompleter.+*/+pci_walk_bus(dev->subordinate,pci_10bit_tag_comp_support,&support);+if(!support)+return;++if(!(dev->pcie_devcap2&PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_10BIT_TAG_REQ))+return;++pci_dbg(dev,"enabling 10-Bit Tag Requester\n");+pcie_capability_set_word(dev,PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2,+PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2_10BIT_TAG_REQ_EN);+}+/**pcie_portdrv_probe-ProbePCI-Expressportdevices*@dev:PCI-Expressportdevicebeingprobed
@@ -111,6 +177,9 @@ static int pcie_portdrv_probe(struct pci_dev *dev,(type!=PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_EC)))return-ENODEV;+if(type==PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT)+pci_configure_rp_10bit_tag(dev);+if(type==PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_EC)pcie_link_rcec(dev);
From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-04 13:49:35
It will make sense to store the pcie_devcap2 value in the pci_dev
structure instead of reading Device Capabilities 2 Register multiple
times. Get the pcie_devcap2 value set_pcie_port_type(), then use
cached pcie_devcap2 in the needed place.
Signed-off-by: Dongdong Liu <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
---
drivers/net/ethernet/chelsio/cxgb4/cxgb4_main.c | 4 +---
drivers/pci/pci.c | 9 ++++-----
drivers/pci/probe.c | 10 ++++------
include/linux/pci.h | 2 ++
4 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
@@ -6304,7 +6304,6 @@ static int cxgb4_iov_configure(struct pci_dev *pdev, int num_vfs)structpci_dev*pbridge;structport_info*pi;charname[IFNAMSIZ];-u32devcap2;u16flags;/* If we want to instantiate Virtual Functions, then our
@@ -6314,10 +6313,9 @@ static int cxgb4_iov_configure(struct pci_dev *pdev, int num_vfs)*/pbridge=pdev->bus->self;pcie_capability_read_word(pbridge,PCI_EXP_FLAGS,&flags);-pcie_capability_read_dword(pbridge,PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2,&devcap2);if((flags&PCI_EXP_FLAGS_VERS)<2||-!(devcap2&PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_ARI)){+!(pbridge->pcie_devcap2&PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_ARI)){/* Our parent bridge does not support ARI so issue a*warningandskipinstantiatingtheVFs.They*won'tbereachable.
@@ -3700,7 +3700,7 @@ int pci_enable_atomic_ops_to_root(struct pci_dev *dev, u32 cap_mask){structpci_bus*bus=dev->bus;structpci_dev*bridge;-u32cap,ctl2;+u32ctl2;if(!pci_is_pcie(dev))return-EINVAL;
@@ -3724,19 +3724,18 @@ int pci_enable_atomic_ops_to_root(struct pci_dev *dev, u32 cap_mask)while(bus->parent){bridge=bus->self;-pcie_capability_read_dword(bridge,PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2,&cap);-switch(pci_pcie_type(bridge)){/* Ensure switch ports support AtomicOp routing */casePCI_EXP_TYPE_UPSTREAM:casePCI_EXP_TYPE_DOWNSTREAM:-if(!(cap&PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_ATOMIC_ROUTE))+if(!(bridge->pcie_devcap2&+PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_ATOMIC_ROUTE))return-EINVAL;break;/* Ensure root port supports all the sizes we care about */casePCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT:-if((cap&cap_mask)!=cap_mask)+if((bridge->pcie_devcap2&cap_mask)!=cap_mask)return-EINVAL;break;}
From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-04 13:49:38
Add a 10-Bit Tag check in the P2PDMA code to ensure that a device with
10-Bit Tag Requester doesn't interact with a device that does not
support 10-BIT Tag Completer. Before that happens, the kernel should
emit a warning. "echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../10bit_tag" to
disable 10-BIT Tag Requester for PF device.
"echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../sriov_vf_10bit_tag_ctl" to disable
10-BIT Tag Requester for VF device.
Signed-off-by: Dongdong Liu <redacted>
---
drivers/pci/p2pdma.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 40 insertions(+)
@@ -410,6 +411,41 @@ static unsigned long map_types_idx(struct pci_dev *client)(client->bus->number<<8)|client->devfn;}+staticboolcheck_10bit_tags_vaild(structpci_dev*a,structpci_dev*b,+boolverbose)+{+boolreq;+boolcomp;+u16ctl2;++if(a->is_virtfn){+#ifdef CONFIG_PCI_IOV+req=!!(a->physfn->sriov->ctrl&+PCI_SRIOV_CTRL_VF_10BIT_TAG_REQ_EN);+#endif+}else{+pcie_capability_read_word(a,PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2,&ctl2);+req=!!(ctl2&PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2_10BIT_TAG_REQ_EN);+}++comp=!!(b->pcie_devcap2&PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_10BIT_TAG_COMP);+if(req&&(!comp)){+if(verbose){+pci_warn(a,"cannot be used for peer-to-peer DMA as 10-Bit Tag Requester enable is set in device (%s), but peer device (%s) does not support the 10-Bit Tag Completer\n",+pci_name(a),pci_name(b));+if(a->is_virtfn)+pci_warn(a,"to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester for this device, echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/%s/sriov_vf_10bit_tag_ctl\n",+pci_name(a));+else+pci_warn(a,"to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester for this device, echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/%s/10bit_tag\n",+pci_name(a));+}+returnfalse;+}++returntrue;+}+/**CalculatetheP2PDMAmappingtypeanddistancebetweentwoPCIdevices.*
From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-04 13:49:40
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 says that if an Endpoint supports
sending Requests to other Endpoints (as opposed to host memory), the
Endpoint must not send 10-Bit Tag Requests to another given Endpoint
unless an implementation-specific mechanism determines that the
Endpoint supports 10-Bit Tag Completer capability.
Add sriov_vf_10bit_tag file to query the status of VF 10-Bit Tag
Requester Enable. Add sriov_vf_10bit_tag_ctl file to disable the VF
10-Bit Tag Requester. The typical use case is for p2pdma when the peer
device does not support 10-BIT Tag Completer.
Signed-off-by: Dongdong Liu <redacted>
---
Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-pci | 20 +++++++++++++
drivers/pci/iov.c | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 70 insertions(+)
@@ -421,3 +421,23 @@ Description: to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind the deivce. The typical use case is for p2pdma when the peer device does not support 10-BIT Tag Completer.++What: /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../sriov_vf_10bit_tag+Date: August 2021+Contact: Dongdong Liu <liudongdong3@huawei.com>+Description:+ This file is associated with a SR-IOV physical function (PF).+ It is visible when the device has VF 10-Bit Tag Requester+ Supported. It contains the status of VF 10-Bit Tag Requester+ Enable. The file is only readable.++What: /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../sriov_vf_10bit_tag_ctl+Date: August 2021+Contact: Dongdong Liu <liudongdong3@huawei.com>+Description:+ This file is associated with a SR-IOV virtual function (VF).+ It is visible when the device has VF 10-Bit Tag Requester+ Supported. It only allows to write 0 to disable VF 10-Bit+ Tag Requester. The file is only writeable when the vf driver+ does not bind to a dirver. The typical use case is for p2pdma+ when the peer device does not support 10-BIT Tag Completer.
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 says that if an Endpoint supports
sending Requests to other Endpoints (as opposed to host memory), the
Endpoint must not send 10-Bit Tag Requests to another given Endpoint
unless an implementation-specific mechanism determines that the Endpoint
supports 10-Bit Tag Completer capability. Add a 10bit_tag sysfs file,
write 0 to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind
the device if the peer device does not support the 10-Bit Tag Completer.
This will make P2P traffic safe. the 10bit_tag file content indicate
current 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable status.
Can we not have both the sysfs file and the command line parameter? If
the user wants to disable it always for a specific device this sysfs
parameter is fairly awkward. A script at boot to unbind the driver, set
the sysfs file and rebind the driver is not trivial and the command line
parameter offers additional options for users.
Logan
Add a 10-Bit Tag check in the P2PDMA code to ensure that a device with
10-Bit Tag Requester doesn't interact with a device that does not
support 10-BIT Tag Completer. Before that happens, the kernel should
emit a warning. "echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../10bit_tag" to
disable 10-BIT Tag Requester for PF device.
"echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../sriov_vf_10bit_tag_ctl" to disable
10-BIT Tag Requester for VF device.
Signed-off-by: Dongdong Liu <redacted>
---
drivers/pci/p2pdma.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 40 insertions(+)
I think the brackets around !comp are unnecessary.
+ if (verbose) {
+ pci_warn(a, "cannot be used for peer-to-peer DMA as 10-Bit Tag Requester enable is set in device (%s), but peer device (%s) does not support the 10-Bit Tag Completer\n",
+ pci_name(a), pci_name(b));
+ if (a->is_virtfn)
+ pci_warn(a, "to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester for this device, echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/%s/sriov_vf_10bit_tag_ctl\n",
+ pci_name(a));
+ else
+ pci_warn(a, "to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester for this device, echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/%s/10bit_tag\n",
+ pci_name(a));
Can we not simplify this slightly by having a const char * set to the
tag in the above if (a->is_virtfn)?
pci_warn(a, "to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester for this device, echo 0 >
/sys/bus/pci/devices/%s/%s\n", pci_name(a), tag);
quoted hunk
+ }
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ return true;
+}
+
/*
* Calculate the P2PDMA mapping type and distance between two PCI devices.
*
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:03PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
10-Bit Tag capability, introduced in PCIe-4.0 increases the total Tag
field size from 8 bits to 10 bits.
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 "Considerations for Implementing
10-Bit Tag Capabilities" Implementation Note.
For platforms where the RC supports 10-Bit Tag Completer capability,
it is highly recommended for platform firmware or operating software
that configures PCIe hierarchies to Set the 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable
bit automatically in Endpoints with 10-Bit Tag Requester capability. This
enables the important class of 10-Bit Tag capable adapters that send
Memory Read Requests only to host memory.
Quoted material should be set off with a blank line before it and
indented by two spaces so it's clear exactly what comes from the spec
and what you've added. For example, see
https://git.kernel.org/linus/ec411e02b7a2
We need to say why we assume it's safe to enable 10-bit tags for all
devices below a Root Port that supports them. I think this has to do
with switches being required to forward 10-bit tags correctly even if
they were designed before 10-bit tags were added to the spec.
And it should call out any cases where it is *not* safe, e.g., if P2P
traffic is an issue.
If there are cases where we don't want to enable 10-bit tags, whether
it's to enable P2P traffic or merely to work around device defects,
that ability needs to be here from the beginning. If somebody needs
to bisect with 10-bit tags disabled, we don't want a bisection hole
between this commit and the commit that adds the control.
Is it meaningful to set dev->ext_10bit_tag when "dev" is a VF? I
suspect only if the VF could be a switch. Is that possible? If not,
I think the dev->is_virtfn check could be done first.
+
+ /*
+ * 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable in Device Control 2 Register is RsvdP
+ * for VF.
(Per 9.3.5.10)
quoted hunk
+ */
+ if (dev->is_virtfn)
+ return;
+
+ if (pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_ENDPOINT &&
+ dev->ext_10bit_tag == 1 &&
+ (dev->pcie_devcap2 & PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_10BIT_TAG_REQ)) {
+ pci_dbg(dev, "enabling 10-Bit Tag Requester\n");
+ pcie_capability_set_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2,
+ PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2_10BIT_TAG_REQ_EN);
+ }
+}
+
int pci_configure_extended_tags(struct pci_dev *dev, void *ign)
{
struct pci_host_bridge *host;
- u16 ctl;
+ u16 ctl, ctl2;
int ret;
if (!pci_is_pcie(dev))
@@ -2045,6 +2077,10 @@ int pci_configure_extended_tags(struct pci_dev *dev, void *ign) if (ret) return 0;+ ret = pcie_capability_read_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2, &ctl2);+ if (ret)+ return 0;+ host = pci_find_host_bridge(dev->bus); if (!host) return 0;
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:04PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
Enable VF 10-Bit Tag Requester when it's upstream component support
10-bit Tag Completer.
s/it's/its/
s/support/supports/
I think "upstream component" here means the PF, doesn't it? I don't
think the PF is really an *upstream* component; there's no routing
like with a switch.
quoted hunk
Signed-off-by: Dongdong Liu <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
---
drivers/pci/iov.c | 8 ++++++++
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
You can just clear PCI_SRIOV_CTRL_VF_10BIT_TAG_REQ_EN unconditionally,
can't you? I know it wouldn't change anything, but removing the "if"
makes the code prettier. You could just add it in the existing
PCI_SRIOV_CTRL_VFE | PCI_SRIOV_CTRL_MSE mask.
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:05PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
PCIe spec 5.0r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 implementation note, In configurations
where a Requester with 10-Bit Tag Requester capability needs to target
multiple Completers, one needs to ensure that the Requester sends 10-Bit
Tag Requests only to Completers that have 10-Bit Tag Completer capability.
So we enable 10-Bit Tag Requester for root port only when the devices
under the root port support 10-Bit Tag Completer.
Fix quoting. I can't tell what is from the spec and what you wrote.
@@ -90,6 +90,72 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops pcie_portdrv_pm_ops = {#define PCIE_PORTDRV_PM_OPS NULL#endif /* !PM */+staticintpci_10bit_tag_comp_support(structpci_dev*dev,void*data)+{+bool*support=(bool*)data;++if(!pci_is_pcie(dev)){+*support=false;+return1;+}++/*+*PCIespec5.0r1.0section2.2.6.2implementationnote.+*ForconfigurationswhereaRequesterwith10-BitTagRequester+*capabilitytargetsCompleterswheresomedoandsomedonothave+*10-BitTagCompletercapability,howtheRequesterdetermineswhich+*NPRsinclude10-BitTagsisoutsidethescopeofthisspecification.+*Sowedonotconsiderhotplugscenario.+*/+if(dev->is_hotplug_bridge){+*support=false;+return1;+}++if(!(dev->pcie_devcap2&PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_10BIT_TAG_COMP)){+*support=false;+return1;+}++return0;+}++staticvoidpci_configure_rp_10bit_tag(structpci_dev*dev)+{+boolsupport=true;++if(dev->subordinate==NULL)+return;++/* If no devices under the root port, no need to enable 10-Bit Tag. */+if(list_empty(&dev->subordinate->devices))+return;++pci_10bit_tag_comp_support(dev,&support);+if(!support)+return;++/*+*PCIespec5.0r1.0section2.2.6.2implementationnote.+*InconfigurationswhereaRequesterwith10-BitTagRequester+*capabilityneedstotargetmultipleCompleters,oneneedstoensure+*thattheRequestersends10-BitTagRequestsonlytoCompleters+*thathave10-BitTagCompletercapability.Soweenable10-BitTag+*Requesterforrootportonlywhenthedevicesundertherootport+*support10-BitTagCompleter.+*/+pci_walk_bus(dev->subordinate,pci_10bit_tag_comp_support,&support);+if(!support)+return;++if(!(dev->pcie_devcap2&PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_10BIT_TAG_REQ))+return;++pci_dbg(dev,"enabling 10-Bit Tag Requester\n");+pcie_capability_set_word(dev,PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2,+PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2_10BIT_TAG_REQ_EN);+}+/**pcie_portdrv_probe-ProbePCI-Expressportdevices*@dev:PCI-Expressportdevicebeingprobed
@@ -111,6 +177,9 @@ static int pcie_portdrv_probe(struct pci_dev *dev,(type!=PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_EC)))return-ENODEV;+if(type==PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT)+pci_configure_rp_10bit_tag(dev);
I don't think this has anything to do with the portdrv, so all this
should go somewhere else.
Out of curiosity, IIUC this enables 10-bit tags for MMIO transactions
from the root port toward the device, i.e., traffic that originates
from a CPU. Is that a significant benefit? I would expect high-speed
devices would primarily operate via DMA with relatively little MMIO
traffic.
if (type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_EC)
pcie_link_rcec(dev);
--
2.7.4
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:06PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted hunk
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 says that if an Endpoint supports
sending Requests to other Endpoints (as opposed to host memory), the
Endpoint must not send 10-Bit Tag Requests to another given Endpoint
unless an implementation-specific mechanism determines that the Endpoint
supports 10-Bit Tag Completer capability. Add a 10bit_tag sysfs file,
write 0 to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind
the device if the peer device does not support the 10-Bit Tag Completer.
This will make P2P traffic safe. the 10bit_tag file content indicate
current 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable status.
Signed-off-by: Dongdong Liu <redacted>
---
Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-pci | 16 +++++++-
drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ Description: binary file containing the Vital Product Data for the device. It should follow the VPD format defined in PCI Specification 2.1 or 2.2, but users should consider- that some devices may have incorrectly formatted data. + that some devices may have incorrectly formatted data. If the underlying VPD has a writable section then the corresponding section of this file will be writable.
@@ -407,3 +407,17 @@ Description: The file is writable if the PF is bound to a driver that implements ->sriov_set_msix_vec_count().++What: /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../10bit_tag+Date: August 2021+Contact: Dongdong Liu <liudongdong3@huawei.com>+Description:+ If a PCI device support 10-Bit Tag Requester, will create the+ 10bit_tag sysfs file. The file is readable, the value+ indicate current 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable.+ 1 - enabled, 0 - disabled.++ The file is also writeable, the value only accept by write 0+ to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind+ the deivce. The typical use case is for p2pdma when the peer+ device does not support 10-BIT Tag Completer.
s/writeable/writable/
s/deivce/device/
The first sentence does not parse.
Is this DEVICE_ATTR_ADMIN_RW()?
Why is it 0600? Everything else in this file looks like
DEVICE_ATTR_RO or DEVICE_ATTR_RW. This should be the same unless
there's a reason to be different.
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:06PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 says that if an Endpoint supports
sending Requests to other Endpoints (as opposed to host memory), the
Endpoint must not send 10-Bit Tag Requests to another given Endpoint
unless an implementation-specific mechanism determines that the Endpoint
supports 10-Bit Tag Completer capability. Add a 10bit_tag sysfs file,
write 0 to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind
the device if the peer device does not support the 10-Bit Tag Completer.
This will make P2P traffic safe. the 10bit_tag file content indicate
current 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable status.
Signed-off-by: Dongdong Liu <redacted>
+ The file is also writeable, the value only accept by write 0
+ to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind
+ the deivce. The typical use case is for p2pdma when the peer
+ device does not support 10-BIT Tag Completer.
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:07PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 says that if an Endpoint supports
sending Requests to other Endpoints (as opposed to host memory), the
Endpoint must not send 10-Bit Tag Requests to another given Endpoint
unless an implementation-specific mechanism determines that the
Endpoint supports 10-Bit Tag Completer capability.
Add sriov_vf_10bit_tag file to query the status of VF 10-Bit Tag
Requester Enable. Add sriov_vf_10bit_tag_ctl file to disable the VF
10-Bit Tag Requester. The typical use case is for p2pdma when the peer
device does not support 10-BIT Tag Completer.
Fix the usual spec quoting issue. Or maybe this is not actually
quoted but is missing blank lines between paragraphs.
s/10-BIT/10-Bit/
@@ -421,3 +421,23 @@ Description: to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind the deivce. The typical use case is for p2pdma when the peer device does not support 10-BIT Tag Completer.++What: /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../sriov_vf_10bit_tag+Date: August 2021+Contact: Dongdong Liu <liudongdong3@huawei.com>+Description:+ This file is associated with a SR-IOV physical function (PF).+ It is visible when the device has VF 10-Bit Tag Requester+ Supported. It contains the status of VF 10-Bit Tag Requester+ Enable. The file is only readable.
Why does this file have "_ctl" on the end when the one in patch 7/9
does not?
+Date: August 2021
+Contact: Dongdong Liu [off-list ref]
+Description:
+ This file is associated with a SR-IOV virtual function (VF).
+ It is visible when the device has VF 10-Bit Tag Requester
+ Supported. It only allows to write 0 to disable VF 10-Bit
+ Tag Requester. The file is only writeable when the vf driver
+ does not bind to a dirver. The typical use case is for p2pdma
+ when the peer device does not support 10-BIT Tag Completer.
s/vf/VF/
s/dirver/driver/
s/10-BIT/10-Bit/
"when the vr driver does not bind to a driver"? Not quite right.
Must be a "device" in there somewhere.
So IIUC this file is associated with a VF, but the bit it writes is
actually in the *PF*? So writing 0 to any VF's file disables 10-bit
tags for *all* VFs? That's worth mentioning here.
From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-05 07:48:04
Hi Bjorn
Many thanks for your review.
On 2021/8/5 7:17, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:03PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
10-Bit Tag capability, introduced in PCIe-4.0 increases the total Tag
field size from 8 bits to 10 bits.
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 "Considerations for Implementing
10-Bit Tag Capabilities" Implementation Note.
For platforms where the RC supports 10-Bit Tag Completer capability,
it is highly recommended for platform firmware or operating software
that configures PCIe hierarchies to Set the 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable
bit automatically in Endpoints with 10-Bit Tag Requester capability. This
enables the important class of 10-Bit Tag capable adapters that send
Memory Read Requests only to host memory.
Quoted material should be set off with a blank line before it and
indented by two spaces so it's clear exactly what comes from the spec
and what you've added. For example, see
https://git.kernel.org/linus/ec411e02b7a2
Good point, will fix.
We need to say why we assume it's safe to enable 10-bit tags for all
devices below a Root Port that supports them. I think this has to do
with switches being required to forward 10-bit tags correctly even if
they were designed before 10-bit tags were added to the spec.
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 "Considerations for Implementing
10-Bit Tag Capabilities" Implementation Note:
Switches that lack 10-Bit Tag Completer capability are still able to
forward NPRs and Completions carrying 10-Bit Tags correctly, since the
two new Tag bits are in TLP Header bits that were formerly Reserved,
and Switches are required to forward Reserved TLP Header bits without
modification. However, if such a Switch detects an error with an NPR
carrying a 10-Bit Tag, and that Switch handles the error by acting as
the Completer for the NPR, the resulting Completion will have an
invalid 10-Bit Tag. Thus, it is strongly recommended that Switches
between any components using 10-Bit Tags support 10-Bit Tag Completer
capability. Note that Switches supporting 16.0 GT/s data rates or
greater must support 10-Bit Tag Completer capability.
This patch also consider to enable 10-Bit Tag for EP device need RP
and Switch device support 10-Bit Tag Completer capability.
And it should call out any cases where it is *not* safe, e.g., if P2P
traffic is an issue.
Yes, indeed.
If there are cases where we don't want to enable 10-bit tags, whether
it's to enable P2P traffic or merely to work around device defects,
that ability needs to be here from the beginning. If somebody needs
to bisect with 10-bit tags disabled, we don't want a bisection hole
between this commit and the commit that adds the control.
We provide sysfs file to disable 10-bit tag for P2P traffic when needed.
The details see PATCH 7/8/9.
Current we do not know the 10-bit tag defective devices, current may no
need do as 8-bit tag does in quirk_no_ext_tags().
From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-05 08:04:24
On 2021/8/5 7:29, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:04PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
Enable VF 10-Bit Tag Requester when it's upstream component support
10-bit Tag Completer.
s/it's/its/
s/support/supports/
Will fix.
I think "upstream component" here means the PF, doesn't it? I don't
think the PF is really an *upstream* component; there's no routing
like with a switch.
I want to say the switch and root port devices that support 10-Bit
Tag Completer. Sure, VF also needs to have 10-bit Tag Requester
Supported capability.
quoted
Signed-off-by: Dongdong Liu <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
---
drivers/pci/iov.c | 8 ++++++++
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
You can just clear PCI_SRIOV_CTRL_VF_10BIT_TAG_REQ_EN unconditionally,
can't you? I know it wouldn't change anything, but removing the "if"
makes the code prettier. You could just add it in the existing
PCI_SRIOV_CTRL_VFE | PCI_SRIOV_CTRL_MSE mask.
From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-05 08:25:28
On 2021/8/5 7:38, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:05PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
PCIe spec 5.0r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 implementation note, In configurations
where a Requester with 10-Bit Tag Requester capability needs to target
multiple Completers, one needs to ensure that the Requester sends 10-Bit
Tag Requests only to Completers that have 10-Bit Tag Completer capability.
So we enable 10-Bit Tag Requester for root port only when the devices
under the root port support 10-Bit Tag Completer.
Fix quoting. I can't tell what is from the spec and what you wrote.
@@ -90,6 +90,72 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops pcie_portdrv_pm_ops = {#define PCIE_PORTDRV_PM_OPS NULL#endif /* !PM */+staticintpci_10bit_tag_comp_support(structpci_dev*dev,void*data)+{+bool*support=(bool*)data;++if(!pci_is_pcie(dev)){+*support=false;+return1;+}++/*+*PCIespec5.0r1.0section2.2.6.2implementationnote.+*ForconfigurationswhereaRequesterwith10-BitTagRequester+*capabilitytargetsCompleterswheresomedoandsomedonothave+*10-BitTagCompletercapability,howtheRequesterdetermineswhich+*NPRsinclude10-BitTagsisoutsidethescopeofthisspecification.+*Sowedonotconsiderhotplugscenario.+*/+if(dev->is_hotplug_bridge){+*support=false;+return1;+}++if(!(dev->pcie_devcap2&PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_10BIT_TAG_COMP)){+*support=false;+return1;+}++return0;+}++staticvoidpci_configure_rp_10bit_tag(structpci_dev*dev)+{+boolsupport=true;++if(dev->subordinate==NULL)+return;++/* If no devices under the root port, no need to enable 10-Bit Tag. */+if(list_empty(&dev->subordinate->devices))+return;++pci_10bit_tag_comp_support(dev,&support);+if(!support)+return;++/*+*PCIespec5.0r1.0section2.2.6.2implementationnote.+*InconfigurationswhereaRequesterwith10-BitTagRequester+*capabilityneedstotargetmultipleCompleters,oneneedstoensure+*thattheRequestersends10-BitTagRequestsonlytoCompleters+*thathave10-BitTagCompletercapability.Soweenable10-BitTag+*Requesterforrootportonlywhenthedevicesundertherootport+*support10-BitTagCompleter.+*/+pci_walk_bus(dev->subordinate,pci_10bit_tag_comp_support,&support);+if(!support)+return;++if(!(dev->pcie_devcap2&PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_10BIT_TAG_REQ))+return;++pci_dbg(dev,"enabling 10-Bit Tag Requester\n");+pcie_capability_set_word(dev,PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2,+PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2_10BIT_TAG_REQ_EN);+}+/**pcie_portdrv_probe-ProbePCI-Expressportdevices*@dev:PCI-Expressportdevicebeingprobed
@@ -111,6 +177,9 @@ static int pcie_portdrv_probe(struct pci_dev *dev,(type!=PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_EC)))return-ENODEV;+if(type==PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT)+pci_configure_rp_10bit_tag(dev);
I don't think this has anything to do with the portdrv, so all this
should go somewhere else.
Yes, any suggestion where to put the code?
Out of curiosity, IIUC this enables 10-bit tags for MMIO transactions
from the root port toward the device, i.e., traffic that originates
from a CPU. Is that a significant benefit? I would expect high-speed
devices would primarily operate via DMA with relatively little MMIO
traffic.
The benefits of 10-Bit Tag for EP are obvious.
There are few RP scenarios. Unless there are two:
1. RC has its own DMA.
2. The P2P tag is replaced at the RP when the P2PDMA go through RP.
Thanks,
Dongdong
quoted
if (type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_EC)
pcie_link_rcec(dev);
--
2.7.4
From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-05 08:37:44
On 2021/8/5 7:49, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:06PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 says that if an Endpoint supports
sending Requests to other Endpoints (as opposed to host memory), the
Endpoint must not send 10-Bit Tag Requests to another given Endpoint
unless an implementation-specific mechanism determines that the Endpoint
supports 10-Bit Tag Completer capability. Add a 10bit_tag sysfs file,
write 0 to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind
the device if the peer device does not support the 10-Bit Tag Completer.
This will make P2P traffic safe. the 10bit_tag file content indicate
current 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable status.
Signed-off-by: Dongdong Liu <redacted>
---
Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-pci | 16 +++++++-
drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ Description: binary file containing the Vital Product Data for the device. It should follow the VPD format defined in PCI Specification 2.1 or 2.2, but users should consider- that some devices may have incorrectly formatted data.+ that some devices may have incorrectly formatted data. If the underlying VPD has a writable section then the corresponding section of this file will be writable.
@@ -407,3 +407,17 @@ Description: The file is writable if the PF is bound to a driver that implements ->sriov_set_msix_vec_count().++What: /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../10bit_tag+Date: August 2021+Contact: Dongdong Liu <liudongdong3@huawei.com>+Description:+ If a PCI device support 10-Bit Tag Requester, will create the+ 10bit_tag sysfs file. The file is readable, the value+ indicate current 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable.+ 1 - enabled, 0 - disabled.++ The file is also writeable, the value only accept by write 0+ to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind+ the deivce. The typical use case is for p2pdma when the peer+ device does not support 10-BIT Tag Completer.
s/writeable/writable/
s/deivce/device/
Will fix.
The first sentence does not parse.
10bit_tag sysfs file will be visible only when the device have 10-Bit
Tag Requester Supported capability.
Will fix.
Is this DEVICE_ATTR_ADMIN_RW()?
Why is it 0600? Everything else in this file looks like
DEVICE_ATTR_RO or DEVICE_ATTR_RW. This should be the same unless
there's a reason to be different.
Should be 0644, I do not use DEVICE_ATTR_RW, just want to
use "10bit_tag" file name.
Will fix.
Thanks,
Dongdong
From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-05 08:38:58
On 2021/8/5 7:52, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:06PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 says that if an Endpoint supports
sending Requests to other Endpoints (as opposed to host memory), the
Endpoint must not send 10-Bit Tag Requests to another given Endpoint
unless an implementation-specific mechanism determines that the Endpoint
supports 10-Bit Tag Completer capability. Add a 10bit_tag sysfs file,
write 0 to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind
the device if the peer device does not support the 10-Bit Tag Completer.
This will make P2P traffic safe. the 10bit_tag file content indicate
current 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable status.
Signed-off-by: Dongdong Liu <redacted>
quoted
+ The file is also writeable, the value only accept by write 0
+ to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind
+ the deivce. The typical use case is for p2pdma when the peer
+ device does not support 10-BIT Tag Completer.
s/10-BIT/10-Bit/
Will fix and will check other place.
Thank,
Dongdong
From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-05 08:47:24
On 2021/8/5 8:05, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:07PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 says that if an Endpoint supports
sending Requests to other Endpoints (as opposed to host memory), the
Endpoint must not send 10-Bit Tag Requests to another given Endpoint
unless an implementation-specific mechanism determines that the
Endpoint supports 10-Bit Tag Completer capability.
Add sriov_vf_10bit_tag file to query the status of VF 10-Bit Tag
Requester Enable. Add sriov_vf_10bit_tag_ctl file to disable the VF
10-Bit Tag Requester. The typical use case is for p2pdma when the peer
device does not support 10-BIT Tag Completer.
Fix the usual spec quoting issue. Or maybe this is not actually
quoted but is missing blank lines between paragraphs.
@@ -421,3 +421,23 @@ Description: to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind the deivce. The typical use case is for p2pdma when the peer device does not support 10-BIT Tag Completer.++What: /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../sriov_vf_10bit_tag+Date: August 2021+Contact: Dongdong Liu <liudongdong3@huawei.com>+Description:+ This file is associated with a SR-IOV physical function (PF).+ It is visible when the device has VF 10-Bit Tag Requester+ Supported. It contains the status of VF 10-Bit Tag Requester+ Enable. The file is only readable.
Why does this file have "_ctl" on the end when the one in patch 7/9
does not?
quoted
+Date: August 2021
+Contact: Dongdong Liu [off-list ref]
+Description:
+ This file is associated with a SR-IOV virtual function (VF).
+ It is visible when the device has VF 10-Bit Tag Requester
+ Supported. It only allows to write 0 to disable VF 10-Bit
+ Tag Requester. The file is only writeable when the vf driver
+ does not bind to a dirver. The typical use case is for p2pdma
+ when the peer device does not support 10-BIT Tag Completer.
s/vf/VF/
s/dirver/driver/
s/10-BIT/10-Bit/
Will fix.
"when the vr driver does not bind to a driver"? Not quite right.
Must be a "device" in there somewhere.
Will fix.
So IIUC this file is associated with a VF, but the bit it writes is
actually in the *PF*? So writing 0 to any VF's file disables 10-bit
tags for *all* VFs? That's worth mentioning here.
From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-05 08:49:08
Hi Logan
Many thanks for your review.
On 2021/8/4 23:56, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
On 2021-08-04 7:47 a.m., Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
Add a 10-Bit Tag check in the P2PDMA code to ensure that a device with
10-Bit Tag Requester doesn't interact with a device that does not
support 10-BIT Tag Completer. Before that happens, the kernel should
emit a warning. "echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../10bit_tag" to
disable 10-BIT Tag Requester for PF device.
"echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../sriov_vf_10bit_tag_ctl" to disable
10-BIT Tag Requester for VF device.
Signed-off-by: Dongdong Liu <redacted>
---
drivers/pci/p2pdma.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 40 insertions(+)
I think the brackets around !comp are unnecessary.
Yes, will fix.
quoted
+ if (verbose) {
+ pci_warn(a, "cannot be used for peer-to-peer DMA as 10-Bit Tag Requester enable is set in device (%s), but peer device (%s) does not support the 10-Bit Tag Completer\n",
+ pci_name(a), pci_name(b));
+ if (a->is_virtfn)
+ pci_warn(a, "to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester for this device, echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/%s/sriov_vf_10bit_tag_ctl\n",
+ pci_name(a));
+ else
+ pci_warn(a, "to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester for this device, echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/%s/10bit_tag\n",
+ pci_name(a));
Can we not simplify this slightly by having a const char * set to the
tag in the above if (a->is_virtfn)?
pci_warn(a, "to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester for this device, echo 0 >
/sys/bus/pci/devices/%s/%s\n", pci_name(a), tag);
Good point, will fix.
Thanks,
Dongdong
quoted
+ }
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ return true;
+}
+
/*
* Calculate the P2PDMA mapping type and distance between two PCI devices.
*
From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-05 09:39:39
Miss a comment reply :).
On 2021/8/5 8:05, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:07PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 says that if an Endpoint supports
sending Requests to other Endpoints (as opposed to host memory), the
Endpoint must not send 10-Bit Tag Requests to another given Endpoint
unless an implementation-specific mechanism determines that the
Endpoint supports 10-Bit Tag Completer capability.
Add sriov_vf_10bit_tag file to query the status of VF 10-Bit Tag
Requester Enable. Add sriov_vf_10bit_tag_ctl file to disable the VF
10-Bit Tag Requester. The typical use case is for p2pdma when the peer
device does not support 10-BIT Tag Completer.
Fix the usual spec quoting issue. Or maybe this is not actually
quoted but is missing blank lines between paragraphs.
s/10-BIT/10-Bit/
@@ -421,3 +421,23 @@ Description: to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind the deivce. The typical use case is for p2pdma when the peer device does not support 10-BIT Tag Completer.++What: /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../sriov_vf_10bit_tag+Date: August 2021+Contact: Dongdong Liu <liudongdong3@huawei.com>+Description:+ This file is associated with a SR-IOV physical function (PF).+ It is visible when the device has VF 10-Bit Tag Requester+ Supported. It contains the status of VF 10-Bit Tag Requester+ Enable. The file is only readable.
Why does this file have "_ctl" on the end when the one in patch 7/9
does not?
PF: 0000:82:00.0 VF:0000:82:10.0
/sys/bus/pci/devices/0000:82:00.0/sriov_vf_10bit_tag
/sys/bus/pci/devices/0000:82:10.0/sriov_vf_10bit_tag_ctl
sriov_vf_10bit_tag is used to qeury the status of VF 10-Bit Tag
Requester Enable, bind with PF device.
sriov_vf_10bit_tag_ctl is used to disable the VF 10-Bit Tag Requester,
bind with VF device, although in fact it writes PF SR-IOV control
register, just detect if the VF driver have already bond with the VF deivce.
Thanks,
Dongdong
From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-05 13:14:54
On 2021/8/4 23:51, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
On 2021-08-04 7:47 a.m., Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 says that if an Endpoint supports
sending Requests to other Endpoints (as opposed to host memory), the
Endpoint must not send 10-Bit Tag Requests to another given Endpoint
unless an implementation-specific mechanism determines that the Endpoint
supports 10-Bit Tag Completer capability. Add a 10bit_tag sysfs file,
write 0 to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind
the device if the peer device does not support the 10-Bit Tag Completer.
This will make P2P traffic safe. the 10bit_tag file content indicate
current 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable status.
Can we not have both the sysfs file and the command line parameter? If
the user wants to disable it always for a specific device this sysfs
parameter is fairly awkward. A script at boot to unbind the driver, set
the sysfs file and rebind the driver is not trivial and the command line
parameter offers additional options for users.
Does the command line parameter as "[PATCH V6 7/8] PCI: Add
"pci=disable_10bit_tag=" parameter for peer-to-peer support" does?
Do we also need such command line if we already had sysfs file?
I think we may not need.
Thanks,
Dongdong
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> Date: 2021-08-05 13:54:01
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 09:14:50PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
On 2021/8/4 23:51, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
quoted
On 2021-08-04 7:47 a.m., Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 says that if an Endpoint supports
sending Requests to other Endpoints (as opposed to host memory), the
Endpoint must not send 10-Bit Tag Requests to another given Endpoint
unless an implementation-specific mechanism determines that the Endpoint
supports 10-Bit Tag Completer capability. Add a 10bit_tag sysfs file,
write 0 to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind
the device if the peer device does not support the 10-Bit Tag Completer.
This will make P2P traffic safe. the 10bit_tag file content indicate
current 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable status.
Can we not have both the sysfs file and the command line parameter? If
the user wants to disable it always for a specific device this sysfs
parameter is fairly awkward. A script at boot to unbind the driver, set
the sysfs file and rebind the driver is not trivial and the command line
parameter offers additional options for users.
Does the command line parameter as "[PATCH V6 7/8] PCI: Add
"pci=disable_10bit_tag=" parameter for peer-to-peer support" does?
Do we also need such command line if we already had sysfs file?
I think we may not need.
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 04:37:39PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
On 2021/8/5 7:49, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:06PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 says that if an Endpoint supports
sending Requests to other Endpoints (as opposed to host memory), the
Endpoint must not send 10-Bit Tag Requests to another given Endpoint
unless an implementation-specific mechanism determines that the Endpoint
supports 10-Bit Tag Completer capability. Add a 10bit_tag sysfs file,
write 0 to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind
the device if the peer device does not support the 10-Bit Tag Completer.
This will make P2P traffic safe. the 10bit_tag file content indicate
current 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable status.
Signed-off-by: Dongdong Liu <redacted>
---
Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-pci | 16 +++++++-
drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ Description: binary file containing the Vital Product Data for the device. It should follow the VPD format defined in PCI Specification 2.1 or 2.2, but users should consider- that some devices may have incorrectly formatted data.+ that some devices may have incorrectly formatted data. If the underlying VPD has a writable section then the corresponding section of this file will be writable.
@@ -407,3 +407,17 @@ Description: The file is writable if the PF is bound to a driver that implements ->sriov_set_msix_vec_count().++What: /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../10bit_tag+Date: August 2021+Contact: Dongdong Liu <liudongdong3@huawei.com>+Description:+ If a PCI device support 10-Bit Tag Requester, will create the+ 10bit_tag sysfs file. The file is readable, the value+ indicate current 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable.+ 1 - enabled, 0 - disabled.++ The file is also writeable, the value only accept by write 0+ to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind+ the deivce. The typical use case is for p2pdma when the peer+ device does not support 10-BIT Tag Completer.
I actually don't like the one-way nature of this. When the hierarchy
supports 10-bit tags, we automatically enable them during enumeration.
Then we provide this sysfs file, but it can only *disable* 10-bit
tags. There's no way to re-enable them except by rebooting (or using
setpci, I guess).
Why can't we allow *enabling* them here if they're supported in this
hierarchy?
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 says that if an Endpoint supports
sending Requests to other Endpoints (as opposed to host memory), the
Endpoint must not send 10-Bit Tag Requests to another given Endpoint
unless an implementation-specific mechanism determines that the Endpoint
supports 10-Bit Tag Completer capability. Add a 10bit_tag sysfs file,
write 0 to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind
the device if the peer device does not support the 10-Bit Tag Completer.
This will make P2P traffic safe. the 10bit_tag file content indicate
current 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable status.
Can we not have both the sysfs file and the command line parameter? If
the user wants to disable it always for a specific device this sysfs
parameter is fairly awkward. A script at boot to unbind the driver, set
the sysfs file and rebind the driver is not trivial and the command line
parameter offers additional options for users.
Does the command line parameter as "[PATCH V6 7/8] PCI: Add
"pci=disable_10bit_tag=" parameter for peer-to-peer support" does?
Do we also need such command line if we already had sysfs file?
I think we may not need.
In my opinion, for reasons stated above, the command line parameter is
way more convenient.
Logan
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:08PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
Add a 10-Bit Tag check in the P2PDMA code to ensure that a device with
10-Bit Tag Requester doesn't interact with a device that does not
support 10-BIT Tag Completer. Before that happens, the kernel should
emit a warning. "echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../10bit_tag" to
disable 10-BIT Tag Requester for PF device.
"echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../sriov_vf_10bit_tag_ctl" to disable
10-BIT Tag Requester for VF device.
s/10-BIT/10-Bit/ several times.
Add blank lines between paragraphs.
@@ -410,6 +411,41 @@ static unsigned long map_types_idx(struct pci_dev *client)(client->bus->number<<8)|client->devfn;}+staticboolcheck_10bit_tags_vaild(structpci_dev*a,structpci_dev*b,
s/vaild/valid/
Or maybe s/valid/safe/ or s/valid/supported/, since "valid" isn't
quite the right word here. We want to know whether the source is
enabled to generate 10-bit tags, and if so, whether the destination
can handle them.
"if (check_10bit_tags_valid())" does not make sense because
"check_10bit_tags_valid()" is not a question with a yes/no answer.
"10bit_tags_valid()" *might* be, because "if (10bit_tags_valid())"
makes sense. But I don't think you can start with a digit.
Or maybe you want to invert the sense, e.g.,
"10bit_tags_unsupported()", since that avoids negation at the caller:
if (10bit_tags_unsupported(a, b) ||
10bit_tags_unsupported(b, a))
map_type = PCI_P2PDMA_MAP_NOT_SUPPORTED;
Doesn't this patch need to be at the very beginning, before you start
enabling 10-bit tags? Otherwise there's a hole in the middle where we
enable them and P2P DMA might break.
+ bool verbose)
+{
+ bool req;
+ bool comp;
+ u16 ctl2;
+
+ if (a->is_virtfn) {
+#ifdef CONFIG_PCI_IOV
+ req = !!(a->physfn->sriov->ctrl &
+ PCI_SRIOV_CTRL_VF_10BIT_TAG_REQ_EN);
+#endif
+ } else {
+ pcie_capability_read_word(a, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2, &ctl2);
+ req = !!(ctl2 & PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2_10BIT_TAG_REQ_EN);
+ }
+
+ comp = !!(b->pcie_devcap2 & PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_10BIT_TAG_COMP);
+ if (req && (!comp)) {
+ if (verbose) {
+ pci_warn(a, "cannot be used for peer-to-peer DMA as 10-Bit Tag Requester enable is set in device (%s), but peer device (%s) does not support the 10-Bit Tag Completer\n",
+ pci_name(a), pci_name(b));
No point in printing pci_name(a) twice. pci_warn() prints it already;
that should be enough.
I think you can simplify this a little, e.g.,
if (!req) /* 10-bit tags not enabled on requester */
return true;
if (comp) /* completer can handle anything */
return true;
/* error case */
if (!verbose)
return false;
pci_warn(...);
return false;
quoted hunk
+ if (a->is_virtfn)
+ pci_warn(a, "to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester for this device, echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/%s/sriov_vf_10bit_tag_ctl\n",
+ pci_name(a));
+ else
+ pci_warn(a, "to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester for this device, echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/%s/10bit_tag\n",
+ pci_name(a));
+ }
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ return true;
+}
+
/*
* Calculate the P2PDMA mapping type and distance between two PCI devices.
*
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 03:47:31PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
Hi Bjorn
Many thanks for your review.
On 2021/8/5 7:17, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:03PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
10-Bit Tag capability, introduced in PCIe-4.0 increases the total Tag
field size from 8 bits to 10 bits.
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 "Considerations for Implementing
10-Bit Tag Capabilities" Implementation Note.
For platforms where the RC supports 10-Bit Tag Completer capability,
it is highly recommended for platform firmware or operating software
that configures PCIe hierarchies to Set the 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable
bit automatically in Endpoints with 10-Bit Tag Requester capability. This
enables the important class of 10-Bit Tag capable adapters that send
Memory Read Requests only to host memory.
Quoted material should be set off with a blank line before it and
indented by two spaces so it's clear exactly what comes from the spec
and what you've added. For example, see
https://git.kernel.org/linus/ec411e02b7a2
Good point, will fix.
quoted
We need to say why we assume it's safe to enable 10-bit tags for all
devices below a Root Port that supports them. I think this has to do
with switches being required to forward 10-bit tags correctly even if
they were designed before 10-bit tags were added to the spec.
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 "Considerations for Implementing
10-Bit Tag Capabilities" Implementation Note:
Switches that lack 10-Bit Tag Completer capability are still able to
forward NPRs and Completions carrying 10-Bit Tags correctly, since the
two new Tag bits are in TLP Header bits that were formerly Reserved,
and Switches are required to forward Reserved TLP Header bits without
modification. However, if such a Switch detects an error with an NPR
carrying a 10-Bit Tag, and that Switch handles the error by acting as
the Completer for the NPR, the resulting Completion will have an
invalid 10-Bit Tag. Thus, it is strongly recommended that Switches
between any components using 10-Bit Tags support 10-Bit Tag Completer
capability. Note that Switches supporting 16.0 GT/s data rates or
greater must support 10-Bit Tag Completer capability.
This patch also consider to enable 10-Bit Tag for EP device need RP
and Switch device support 10-Bit Tag Completer capability.
quoted
And it should call out any cases where it is *not* safe, e.g., if P2P
traffic is an issue.
Yes, indeed.
quoted
If there are cases where we don't want to enable 10-bit tags, whether
it's to enable P2P traffic or merely to work around device defects,
that ability needs to be here from the beginning. If somebody needs
to bisect with 10-bit tags disabled, we don't want a bisection hole
between this commit and the commit that adds the control.
We provide sysfs file to disable 10-bit tag for P2P traffic when needed.
The details see PATCH 7/8/9.
A mechanism for avoiding problems needs to be present from the very
beginning so there's no bisection hole. It should not be added by a
future patch.
The sysfs file is a start, but if we run into an issue, it could mean
that we can't boot and run long enough to use sysfs to disable 10-bit
tags. So I think we might need a kernel parameter that disables it
(and possibly other things like MPS optimization).
Current we do not know the 10-bit tag defective devices, current may no
need do as 8-bit tag does in quirk_no_ext_tags().
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 04:03:58PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
On 2021/8/5 7:29, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:04PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
Enable VF 10-Bit Tag Requester when it's upstream component support
10-bit Tag Completer.
I think "upstream component" here means the PF, doesn't it? I don't
think the PF is really an *upstream* component; there's no routing
like with a switch.
I want to say the switch and root port devices that support 10-Bit
Tag Completer. Sure, VF also needs to have 10-bit Tag Requester
Supported capability.
OK. IIUC we're not talking about P2PDMA here; we're talking about
regular DMA to host memory, which means I *think* only the Root Port
is important, since it is the completer for DMA to host memory. We're
not talking about P2PDMA to a switch BAR, where the switch would be
the completer.
From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-07 06:19:16
On 2021/8/6 3:54, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 03:47:31PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
Hi Bjorn
Many thanks for your review.
On 2021/8/5 7:17, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:03PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
10-Bit Tag capability, introduced in PCIe-4.0 increases the total Tag
field size from 8 bits to 10 bits.
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 "Considerations for Implementing
10-Bit Tag Capabilities" Implementation Note.
For platforms where the RC supports 10-Bit Tag Completer capability,
it is highly recommended for platform firmware or operating software
that configures PCIe hierarchies to Set the 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable
bit automatically in Endpoints with 10-Bit Tag Requester capability. This
enables the important class of 10-Bit Tag capable adapters that send
Memory Read Requests only to host memory.
Quoted material should be set off with a blank line before it and
indented by two spaces so it's clear exactly what comes from the spec
and what you've added. For example, see
https://git.kernel.org/linus/ec411e02b7a2
Good point, will fix.
quoted
We need to say why we assume it's safe to enable 10-bit tags for all
devices below a Root Port that supports them. I think this has to do
with switches being required to forward 10-bit tags correctly even if
they were designed before 10-bit tags were added to the spec.
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 "Considerations for Implementing
10-Bit Tag Capabilities" Implementation Note:
Switches that lack 10-Bit Tag Completer capability are still able to
forward NPRs and Completions carrying 10-Bit Tags correctly, since the
two new Tag bits are in TLP Header bits that were formerly Reserved,
and Switches are required to forward Reserved TLP Header bits without
modification. However, if such a Switch detects an error with an NPR
carrying a 10-Bit Tag, and that Switch handles the error by acting as
the Completer for the NPR, the resulting Completion will have an
invalid 10-Bit Tag. Thus, it is strongly recommended that Switches
between any components using 10-Bit Tags support 10-Bit Tag Completer
capability. Note that Switches supporting 16.0 GT/s data rates or
greater must support 10-Bit Tag Completer capability.
This patch also consider to enable 10-Bit Tag for EP device need RP
and Switch device support 10-Bit Tag Completer capability.
quoted
And it should call out any cases where it is *not* safe, e.g., if P2P
traffic is an issue.
Yes, indeed.
quoted
If there are cases where we don't want to enable 10-bit tags, whether
it's to enable P2P traffic or merely to work around device defects,
that ability needs to be here from the beginning. If somebody needs
to bisect with 10-bit tags disabled, we don't want a bisection hole
between this commit and the commit that adds the control.
We provide sysfs file to disable 10-bit tag for P2P traffic when needed.
The details see PATCH 7/8/9.
A mechanism for avoiding problems needs to be present from the very
beginning so there's no bisection hole. It should not be added by a
future patch.
Yes, will adjust PATCH 7/8/9 before PATCH 4。
The sysfs file is a start, but if we run into an issue, it could mean
that we can't boot and run long enough to use sysfs to disable 10-bit
tags. So I think we might need a kernel parameter that disables it
(and possibly other things like MPS optimization).
Yes, We can add a pcie_tag_p2p kernel parameter just to use the 8-bit
tags, not to enable 10-bit tags for all PCIe devices.
Thanks,
Dongdong
From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-07 07:02:02
On 2021/8/5 23:31, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 04:37:39PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
On 2021/8/5 7:49, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:06PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 says that if an Endpoint supports
sending Requests to other Endpoints (as opposed to host memory), the
Endpoint must not send 10-Bit Tag Requests to another given Endpoint
unless an implementation-specific mechanism determines that the Endpoint
supports 10-Bit Tag Completer capability. Add a 10bit_tag sysfs file,
write 0 to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind
the device if the peer device does not support the 10-Bit Tag Completer.
This will make P2P traffic safe. the 10bit_tag file content indicate
current 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable status.
Signed-off-by: Dongdong Liu <redacted>
---
Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-pci | 16 +++++++-
drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ Description: binary file containing the Vital Product Data for the device. It should follow the VPD format defined in PCI Specification 2.1 or 2.2, but users should consider- that some devices may have incorrectly formatted data.+ that some devices may have incorrectly formatted data. If the underlying VPD has a writable section then the corresponding section of this file will be writable.
@@ -407,3 +407,17 @@ Description: The file is writable if the PF is bound to a driver that implements ->sriov_set_msix_vec_count().++What: /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../10bit_tag+Date: August 2021+Contact: Dongdong Liu <liudongdong3@huawei.com>+Description:+ If a PCI device support 10-Bit Tag Requester, will create the+ 10bit_tag sysfs file. The file is readable, the value+ indicate current 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable.+ 1 - enabled, 0 - disabled.++ The file is also writeable, the value only accept by write 0+ to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind+ the deivce. The typical use case is for p2pdma when the peer+ device does not support 10-BIT Tag Completer.
I actually don't like the one-way nature of this. When the hierarchy
supports 10-bit tags, we automatically enable them during enumeration.
Then we provide this sysfs file, but it can only *disable* 10-bit
tags. There's no way to re-enable them except by rebooting (or using
setpci, I guess).
Why can't we allow *enabling* them here if they're supported in this
hierarchy?
Yes, we can also provide this sysfs to enable 10-bit tag for EP devices
when the hierarchy supports 10-bit tags.
I do not want to provide sysfs to enable/disable 10-bit tag for RP
devices as I can not tell current if the the Function has outstanding
Non-Posted Requests, may need to unbind all the EP drivers under the
RP, and current seems no scenario need to do this. This will make things
more complex.
Thanks,
Dongdong
From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-07 07:11:44
On 2021/8/6 2:12, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:08PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
Add a 10-Bit Tag check in the P2PDMA code to ensure that a device with
10-Bit Tag Requester doesn't interact with a device that does not
support 10-BIT Tag Completer. Before that happens, the kernel should
emit a warning. "echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../10bit_tag" to
disable 10-BIT Tag Requester for PF device.
"echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../sriov_vf_10bit_tag_ctl" to disable
10-BIT Tag Requester for VF device.
@@ -410,6 +411,41 @@ static unsigned long map_types_idx(struct pci_dev *client)(client->bus->number<<8)|client->devfn;}+staticboolcheck_10bit_tags_vaild(structpci_dev*a,structpci_dev*b,
s/vaild/valid/
Or maybe s/valid/safe/ or s/valid/supported/, since "valid" isn't
quite the right word here. We want to know whether the source is
enabled to generate 10-bit tags, and if so, whether the destination
can handle them.
"if (check_10bit_tags_valid())" does not make sense because
"check_10bit_tags_valid()" is not a question with a yes/no answer.
"10bit_tags_valid()" *might* be, because "if (10bit_tags_valid())"
makes sense. But I don't think you can start with a digit.
Or maybe you want to invert the sense, e.g.,
"10bit_tags_unsupported()", since that avoids negation at the caller:
if (10bit_tags_unsupported(a, b) ||
10bit_tags_unsupported(b, a))
map_type = PCI_P2PDMA_MAP_NOT_SUPPORTED;
Good suggestion. add a pci_ prefix.
if (pci_10bit_tags_unsupported(a, b) ||
pci_10bit_tags_unsupported(b, a))
map_type = PCI_P2PDMA_MAP_NOT_SUPPORTED;
Doesn't this patch need to be at the very beginning, before you start
enabling 10-bit tags? Otherwise there's a hole in the middle where we
enable them and P2P DMA might break.
Yes, will do.
quoted
+ bool verbose)
+{
+ bool req;
+ bool comp;
+ u16 ctl2;
+
+ if (a->is_virtfn) {
+#ifdef CONFIG_PCI_IOV
+ req = !!(a->physfn->sriov->ctrl &
+ PCI_SRIOV_CTRL_VF_10BIT_TAG_REQ_EN);
+#endif
+ } else {
+ pcie_capability_read_word(a, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2, &ctl2);
+ req = !!(ctl2 & PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2_10BIT_TAG_REQ_EN);
+ }
+
+ comp = !!(b->pcie_devcap2 & PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_10BIT_TAG_COMP);
+ if (req && (!comp)) {
+ if (verbose) {
+ pci_warn(a, "cannot be used for peer-to-peer DMA as 10-Bit Tag Requester enable is set in device (%s), but peer device (%s) does not support the 10-Bit Tag Completer\n",
+ pci_name(a), pci_name(b));
No point in printing pci_name(a) twice. pci_warn() prints it already;
that should be enough.
Will fix.
I think you can simplify this a little, e.g.,
if (!req) /* 10-bit tags not enabled on requester */
return true;
if (comp) /* completer can handle anything */
return true;
/* error case */
if (!verbose)
return false;
pci_warn(...);
return false;
Good point, this will make code more clean and readable.
Thanks,
Dongdong
quoted
+ if (a->is_virtfn)
+ pci_warn(a, "to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester for this device, echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/%s/sriov_vf_10bit_tag_ctl\n",
+ pci_name(a));
+ else
+ pci_warn(a, "to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester for this device, echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/%s/10bit_tag\n",
+ pci_name(a));
+ }
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ return true;
+}
+
/*
* Calculate the P2PDMA mapping type and distance between two PCI devices.
*
From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-07 07:46:34
On 2021/8/7 6:59, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 04:03:58PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
On 2021/8/5 7:29, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:04PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
Enable VF 10-Bit Tag Requester when it's upstream component support
10-bit Tag Completer.
I think "upstream component" here means the PF, doesn't it? I don't
think the PF is really an *upstream* component; there's no routing
like with a switch.
I want to say the switch and root port devices that support 10-Bit
Tag Completer. Sure, VF also needs to have 10-bit Tag Requester
Supported capability.
OK. IIUC we're not talking about P2PDMA here; we're talking about
regular DMA to host memory, which means I *think* only the Root Port
is important, since it is the completer for DMA to host memory. We're
not talking about P2PDMA to a switch BAR, where the switch would be
the completer.
Yes, only the Root Port is important, this is also PCIe spec
recommended.
Only when switch detects an error with an NPR carrying a 10-Bit Tag,
and that Switch handles the error by acting as the Completer for the
NPR, the resulting Completion will have an invalid 10-Bit Tag.
Enable 10-bit for EP devices depend on the hierarchy(include switch)
supports 10-bit tags in "[PATCH V7 4/9] PCI: Enable 10-Bit Tag support
for PCIe Endpoint devices". This seems complex.
I will fix this. Enable 10-bit tag for EP devices only depend on Root
Port 10-bit tag completer about regular DMA to host memory.
The below is the PCIe spec describe:
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 "Considerations for Implementing
10-Bit Tag Capabilities" Implementation Note.
For platforms where the RC supports 10-Bit Tag Completer capability,
it is highly recommended for platform firmware or operating software
that configures PCIe hierarchies to Set the 10-Bit Tag Requester
Enable bit automatically in Endpoints with 10-Bit Tag Requester
capability. This enables the important class of 10-Bit Tag capable
adapters that send Memory Read Requests only to host memory.
...
Switches that lack 10-Bit Tag Completer capability are still able to
forward NPRs and Completions carrying 10-Bit Tags correctly, since the
two new Tag bits are in TLP Header bits that were formerly Reserved,
and Switches are required to forward Reserved TLP Header bits without
modification. However, if such a Switch detects an error with an NPR
carrying a 10-Bit Tag, and that Switch handles the error by acting as
the Completer for the NPR, the resulting Completion will have an
invalid 10-Bit Tag. Thus, it is strongly recommended that Switches
between any components using 10-Bit Tags support 10-Bit Tag Completer
capability. Note that Switches supporting 16.0 GT/s data rates or
greater must support 10-Bit Tag Completer capability.
Thanks,
Dongdong
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 04:25:23PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
On 2021/8/5 7:38, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:05PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
PCIe spec 5.0r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 implementation note, In configurations
where a Requester with 10-Bit Tag Requester capability needs to target
multiple Completers, one needs to ensure that the Requester sends 10-Bit
Tag Requests only to Completers that have 10-Bit Tag Completer capability.
So we enable 10-Bit Tag Requester for root port only when the devices
under the root port support 10-Bit Tag Completer.
Fix quoting. I can't tell what is from the spec and what you wrote.
@@ -90,6 +90,72 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops pcie_portdrv_pm_ops = {#define PCIE_PORTDRV_PM_OPS NULL#endif /* !PM */+staticintpci_10bit_tag_comp_support(structpci_dev*dev,void*data)+{+bool*support=(bool*)data;++if(!pci_is_pcie(dev)){+*support=false;+return1;+}++/*+*PCIespec5.0r1.0section2.2.6.2implementationnote.+*ForconfigurationswhereaRequesterwith10-BitTagRequester+*capabilitytargetsCompleterswheresomedoandsomedonothave+*10-BitTagCompletercapability,howtheRequesterdetermineswhich+*NPRsinclude10-BitTagsisoutsidethescopeofthisspecification.+*Sowedonotconsiderhotplugscenario.+*/+if(dev->is_hotplug_bridge){+*support=false;+return1;+}++if(!(dev->pcie_devcap2&PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_10BIT_TAG_COMP)){+*support=false;+return1;+}++return0;+}++staticvoidpci_configure_rp_10bit_tag(structpci_dev*dev)+{+boolsupport=true;++if(dev->subordinate==NULL)+return;++/* If no devices under the root port, no need to enable 10-Bit Tag. */+if(list_empty(&dev->subordinate->devices))+return;++pci_10bit_tag_comp_support(dev,&support);+if(!support)+return;++/*+*PCIespec5.0r1.0section2.2.6.2implementationnote.+*InconfigurationswhereaRequesterwith10-BitTagRequester+*capabilityneedstotargetmultipleCompleters,oneneedstoensure+*thattheRequestersends10-BitTagRequestsonlytoCompleters+*thathave10-BitTagCompletercapability.Soweenable10-BitTag+*Requesterforrootportonlywhenthedevicesundertherootport+*support10-BitTagCompleter.+*/+pci_walk_bus(dev->subordinate,pci_10bit_tag_comp_support,&support);+if(!support)+return;++if(!(dev->pcie_devcap2&PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_10BIT_TAG_REQ))+return;++pci_dbg(dev,"enabling 10-Bit Tag Requester\n");+pcie_capability_set_word(dev,PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2,+PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2_10BIT_TAG_REQ_EN);+}+/**pcie_portdrv_probe-ProbePCI-Expressportdevices*@dev:PCI-Expressportdevicebeingprobed
@@ -111,6 +177,9 @@ static int pcie_portdrv_probe(struct pci_dev *dev,(type!=PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_EC)))return-ENODEV;+if(type==PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT)+pci_configure_rp_10bit_tag(dev);
I don't think this has anything to do with the portdrv, so all this
should go somewhere else.
Yes, any suggestion where to put the code?
It seems similar to pci_configure_ltr(), pci_configure_eetlp_prefix(),
and other things in drivers/pci/probe.c, so maybe there?
Or, if this is more of a theoretical advantage than a demonstrated
performance improvement, we could just hold off on doing it until it
becomes important. I can't tell if you have a scenario that actually
benefits from this yet.
quoted
Out of curiosity, IIUC this enables 10-bit tags for MMIO transactions
from the root port toward the device, i.e., traffic that originates
from a CPU. Is that a significant benefit? I would expect high-speed
devices would primarily operate via DMA with relatively little MMIO
traffic.
The benefits of 10-Bit Tag for EP are obvious.
There are few RP scenarios. Unless there are two:
1. RC has its own DMA.
2. The P2P tag is replaced at the RP when the P2PDMA go through RP.
On Sat, Aug 07, 2021 at 03:11:34PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
On 2021/8/6 2:12, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:08PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
Add a 10-Bit Tag check in the P2PDMA code to ensure that a device with
10-Bit Tag Requester doesn't interact with a device that does not
support 10-BIT Tag Completer. Before that happens, the kernel should
emit a warning. "echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../10bit_tag" to
disable 10-BIT Tag Requester for PF device.
"echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../sriov_vf_10bit_tag_ctl" to disable
10-BIT Tag Requester for VF device.
@@ -410,6 +411,41 @@ static unsigned long map_types_idx(struct pci_dev *client)(client->bus->number<<8)|client->devfn;}+staticboolcheck_10bit_tags_vaild(structpci_dev*a,structpci_dev*b,
s/vaild/valid/
Or maybe s/valid/safe/ or s/valid/supported/, since "valid" isn't
quite the right word here. We want to know whether the source is
enabled to generate 10-bit tags, and if so, whether the destination
can handle them.
"if (check_10bit_tags_valid())" does not make sense because
"check_10bit_tags_valid()" is not a question with a yes/no answer.
"10bit_tags_valid()" *might* be, because "if (10bit_tags_valid())"
makes sense. But I don't think you can start with a digit.
Or maybe you want to invert the sense, e.g.,
"10bit_tags_unsupported()", since that avoids negation at the caller:
if (10bit_tags_unsupported(a, b) ||
10bit_tags_unsupported(b, a))
map_type = PCI_P2PDMA_MAP_NOT_SUPPORTED;
Good suggestion. add a pci_ prefix.
if (pci_10bit_tags_unsupported(a, b) ||
pci_10bit_tags_unsupported(b, a))
map_type = PCI_P2PDMA_MAP_NOT_SUPPORTED;
This treats both directions as equally important. I don't know P2PDMA
very well, but that doesn't seem like it would necessarily be the
case. I would think a common case would be device A doing DMA to B,
but B *not* doing DMA to A. So can you tell which direction you're
setting up here, and can you take advantage of any asymmetry, e.g., by
enabling 10-bit tags in the direction that supports it even if the
other direction does not?
On Sat, Aug 07, 2021 at 03:01:56PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
On 2021/8/5 23:31, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 04:37:39PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
On 2021/8/5 7:49, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:06PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 says that if an Endpoint supports
sending Requests to other Endpoints (as opposed to host memory), the
Endpoint must not send 10-Bit Tag Requests to another given Endpoint
unless an implementation-specific mechanism determines that the Endpoint
supports 10-Bit Tag Completer capability. Add a 10bit_tag sysfs file,
write 0 to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind
the device if the peer device does not support the 10-Bit Tag Completer.
This will make P2P traffic safe. the 10bit_tag file content indicate
current 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable status.
Signed-off-by: Dongdong Liu <redacted>
---
Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-pci | 16 +++++++-
drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ Description: binary file containing the Vital Product Data for the device. It should follow the VPD format defined in PCI Specification 2.1 or 2.2, but users should consider- that some devices may have incorrectly formatted data.+ that some devices may have incorrectly formatted data. If the underlying VPD has a writable section then the corresponding section of this file will be writable.
@@ -407,3 +407,17 @@ Description: The file is writable if the PF is bound to a driver that implements ->sriov_set_msix_vec_count().++What: /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../10bit_tag+Date: August 2021+Contact: Dongdong Liu <liudongdong3@huawei.com>+Description:+ If a PCI device support 10-Bit Tag Requester, will create the+ 10bit_tag sysfs file. The file is readable, the value+ indicate current 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable.+ 1 - enabled, 0 - disabled.++ The file is also writeable, the value only accept by write 0+ to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind+ the deivce. The typical use case is for p2pdma when the peer+ device does not support 10-BIT Tag Completer.
I actually don't like the one-way nature of this. When the hierarchy
supports 10-bit tags, we automatically enable them during enumeration.
Then we provide this sysfs file, but it can only *disable* 10-bit
tags. There's no way to re-enable them except by rebooting (or using
setpci, I guess).
Why can't we allow *enabling* them here if they're supported in this
hierarchy?
Yes, we can also provide this sysfs to enable 10-bit tag for EP devices
when the hierarchy supports 10-bit tags.
I do not want to provide sysfs to enable/disable 10-bit tag for RP
devices as I can not tell current if the the Function has outstanding
Non-Posted Requests, may need to unbind all the EP drivers under the
RP, and current seems no scenario need to do this. This will make things
more complex.
You mean "no scenario requires disabling 10-bit tags and then
re-enabling them"? That may be true, but I'm still hesitant to
provide a switch than can only be reversed by rebooting.
This is similar to the issue Leon raised that it's not practical to
reboot machines. Maybe we accept a one-way switch if the sole purpose
is to work around a hardware defect. Or maybe a kernel parameter that
disables 10-bit tags completely is the defect mitigation. I think we
probably need such a parameter in case a defect prevents us from
booting far enough to use the sysfs switch.
From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-10 11:59:59
On 2021/8/10 1:26, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 04:25:23PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
On 2021/8/5 7:38, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:05PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
PCIe spec 5.0r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 implementation note, In configurations
where a Requester with 10-Bit Tag Requester capability needs to target
multiple Completers, one needs to ensure that the Requester sends 10-Bit
Tag Requests only to Completers that have 10-Bit Tag Completer capability.
So we enable 10-Bit Tag Requester for root port only when the devices
under the root port support 10-Bit Tag Completer.
Fix quoting. I can't tell what is from the spec and what you wrote.
@@ -90,6 +90,72 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops pcie_portdrv_pm_ops = {#define PCIE_PORTDRV_PM_OPS NULL#endif /* !PM */+staticintpci_10bit_tag_comp_support(structpci_dev*dev,void*data)+{+bool*support=(bool*)data;++if(!pci_is_pcie(dev)){+*support=false;+return1;+}++/*+*PCIespec5.0r1.0section2.2.6.2implementationnote.+*ForconfigurationswhereaRequesterwith10-BitTagRequester+*capabilitytargetsCompleterswheresomedoandsomedonothave+*10-BitTagCompletercapability,howtheRequesterdetermineswhich+*NPRsinclude10-BitTagsisoutsidethescopeofthisspecification.+*Sowedonotconsiderhotplugscenario.+*/+if(dev->is_hotplug_bridge){+*support=false;+return1;+}++if(!(dev->pcie_devcap2&PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_10BIT_TAG_COMP)){+*support=false;+return1;+}++return0;+}++staticvoidpci_configure_rp_10bit_tag(structpci_dev*dev)+{+boolsupport=true;++if(dev->subordinate==NULL)+return;++/* If no devices under the root port, no need to enable 10-Bit Tag. */+if(list_empty(&dev->subordinate->devices))+return;++pci_10bit_tag_comp_support(dev,&support);+if(!support)+return;++/*+*PCIespec5.0r1.0section2.2.6.2implementationnote.+*InconfigurationswhereaRequesterwith10-BitTagRequester+*capabilityneedstotargetmultipleCompleters,oneneedstoensure+*thattheRequestersends10-BitTagRequestsonlytoCompleters+*thathave10-BitTagCompletercapability.Soweenable10-BitTag+*Requesterforrootportonlywhenthedevicesundertherootport+*support10-BitTagCompleter.+*/+pci_walk_bus(dev->subordinate,pci_10bit_tag_comp_support,&support);+if(!support)+return;++if(!(dev->pcie_devcap2&PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_10BIT_TAG_REQ))+return;++pci_dbg(dev,"enabling 10-Bit Tag Requester\n");+pcie_capability_set_word(dev,PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2,+PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2_10BIT_TAG_REQ_EN);+}+/**pcie_portdrv_probe-ProbePCI-Expressportdevices*@dev:PCI-Expressportdevicebeingprobed
@@ -111,6 +177,9 @@ static int pcie_portdrv_probe(struct pci_dev *dev,(type!=PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_EC)))return-ENODEV;+if(type==PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT)+pci_configure_rp_10bit_tag(dev);
I don't think this has anything to do with the portdrv, so all this
should go somewhere else.
Yes, any suggestion where to put the code?
It seems similar to pci_configure_ltr(), pci_configure_eetlp_prefix(),
and other things in drivers/pci/probe.c, so maybe there?
Seems similar to pcie_bus_configure_settings().
Enable RP 10-bit tag requester need to know all the EP devices 10-bit
tag completer capability under the RP.
Or, if this is more of a theoretical advantage than a demonstrated
performance improvement, we could just hold off on doing it until it
becomes important. I can't tell if you have a scenario that actually
benefits from this yet.
Ok, I will remove this patch from the patchset.
We will do this later when get performance improvement data.
Thanks,
Dongdong
quoted
quoted
Out of curiosity, IIUC this enables 10-bit tags for MMIO transactions
from the root port toward the device, i.e., traffic that originates
from a CPU. Is that a significant benefit? I would expect high-speed
devices would primarily operate via DMA with relatively little MMIO
traffic.
The benefits of 10-Bit Tag for EP are obvious.
There are few RP scenarios. Unless there are two:
1. RC has its own DMA.
2. The P2P tag is replaced at the RP when the P2PDMA go through RP.
From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-10 12:16:27
On 2021/8/10 1:37, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Sat, Aug 07, 2021 at 03:01:56PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
On 2021/8/5 23:31, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
quoted
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 04:37:39PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
On 2021/8/5 7:49, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:06PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 says that if an Endpoint supports
sending Requests to other Endpoints (as opposed to host memory), the
Endpoint must not send 10-Bit Tag Requests to another given Endpoint
unless an implementation-specific mechanism determines that the Endpoint
supports 10-Bit Tag Completer capability. Add a 10bit_tag sysfs file,
write 0 to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind
the device if the peer device does not support the 10-Bit Tag Completer.
This will make P2P traffic safe. the 10bit_tag file content indicate
current 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable status.
Signed-off-by: Dongdong Liu <redacted>
---
Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-pci | 16 +++++++-
drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ Description: binary file containing the Vital Product Data for the device. It should follow the VPD format defined in PCI Specification 2.1 or 2.2, but users should consider- that some devices may have incorrectly formatted data.+ that some devices may have incorrectly formatted data. If the underlying VPD has a writable section then the corresponding section of this file will be writable.
@@ -407,3 +407,17 @@ Description: The file is writable if the PF is bound to a driver that implements ->sriov_set_msix_vec_count().++What: /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../10bit_tag+Date: August 2021+Contact: Dongdong Liu <liudongdong3@huawei.com>+Description:+ If a PCI device support 10-Bit Tag Requester, will create the+ 10bit_tag sysfs file. The file is readable, the value+ indicate current 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable.+ 1 - enabled, 0 - disabled.++ The file is also writeable, the value only accept by write 0+ to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester when the driver does not bind+ the deivce. The typical use case is for p2pdma when the peer+ device does not support 10-BIT Tag Completer.
I actually don't like the one-way nature of this. When the hierarchy
supports 10-bit tags, we automatically enable them during enumeration.
Then we provide this sysfs file, but it can only *disable* 10-bit
tags. There's no way to re-enable them except by rebooting (or using
setpci, I guess).
Why can't we allow *enabling* them here if they're supported in this
hierarchy?
Yes, we can also provide this sysfs to enable 10-bit tag for EP devices
when the hierarchy supports 10-bit tags.
I do not want to provide sysfs to enable/disable 10-bit tag for RP
devices as I can not tell current if the the Function has outstanding
Non-Posted Requests, may need to unbind all the EP drivers under the
RP, and current seems no scenario need to do this. This will make things
more complex.
You mean "no scenario requires disabling 10-bit tags and then
re-enabling them"?
Just for Root Port devices.
That may be true, but I'm still hesitant to
provide a switch than can only be reversed by rebooting.
This is similar to the issue Leon raised that it's not practical to
reboot machines. Maybe we accept a one-way switch if the sole purpose
is to work around a hardware defect. Or maybe a kernel parameter that
disables 10-bit tags completely is the defect mitigation. I think we
probably need such a parameter in case a defect prevents us from
booting far enough to use the sysfs switch.
Make sense, will provide sysfs to enable and disable 10-bit tag.
Thanks,
Dongdong
From: Dongdong Liu <hidden> Date: 2021-08-10 12:31:35
On 2021/8/10 1:31, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Sat, Aug 07, 2021 at 03:11:34PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
On 2021/8/6 2:12, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 09:47:08PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
quoted
Add a 10-Bit Tag check in the P2PDMA code to ensure that a device with
10-Bit Tag Requester doesn't interact with a device that does not
support 10-BIT Tag Completer. Before that happens, the kernel should
emit a warning. "echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../10bit_tag" to
disable 10-BIT Tag Requester for PF device.
"echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../sriov_vf_10bit_tag_ctl" to disable
10-BIT Tag Requester for VF device.
@@ -410,6 +411,41 @@ static unsigned long map_types_idx(struct pci_dev *client)(client->bus->number<<8)|client->devfn;}+staticboolcheck_10bit_tags_vaild(structpci_dev*a,structpci_dev*b,
s/vaild/valid/
Or maybe s/valid/safe/ or s/valid/supported/, since "valid" isn't
quite the right word here. We want to know whether the source is
enabled to generate 10-bit tags, and if so, whether the destination
can handle them.
"if (check_10bit_tags_valid())" does not make sense because
"check_10bit_tags_valid()" is not a question with a yes/no answer.
"10bit_tags_valid()" *might* be, because "if (10bit_tags_valid())"
makes sense. But I don't think you can start with a digit.
Or maybe you want to invert the sense, e.g.,
"10bit_tags_unsupported()", since that avoids negation at the caller:
if (10bit_tags_unsupported(a, b) ||
10bit_tags_unsupported(b, a))
map_type = PCI_P2PDMA_MAP_NOT_SUPPORTED;
Good suggestion. add a pci_ prefix.
if (pci_10bit_tags_unsupported(a, b) ||
pci_10bit_tags_unsupported(b, a))
map_type = PCI_P2PDMA_MAP_NOT_SUPPORTED;
This treats both directions as equally important. I don't know P2PDMA
very well, but that doesn't seem like it would necessarily be the
case. I would think a common case would be device A doing DMA to B,
but B *not* doing DMA to A. So can you tell which direction you're
setting up here, and can you take advantage of any asymmetry, e.g., by
enabling 10-bit tags in the direction that supports it even if the
other direction does not?
Documentation/driver-api/pci/p2pdma.rst
* Provider - A driver which provides or publishes P2P resources like
memory or doorbell registers to other drivers.
* Client - A driver which makes use of a resource by setting up a
DMA transaction to or from it.
So we may just check as below.
if (10bit_tags_unsupported(client, provider, verbose)
map_type = PCI_P2PDMA_MAP_NOT_SUPPORTED;
@Logan What's your opinion?
Thanks,
Dongdong