Re: [RFC PATCH] pci: Identify Enhanced Allocation (EA) BAR Equivalent resources

["Sean O. Stalley" <sean.stalley@intel.com>]

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:20:27PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 10:26 -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > We've done a pretty good job of abstracting EA from drivers, but there
> > are some properties of BAR Equivalent resources that don't really jive
> > with traditional PCI BARs.  In particular, natural alignment is only
> > encouraged, not required.
> > 
> > Why does this matter?  There are drivers like vfio-pci that will
> > happily gobble up the EA abstraction that's been implemented and
> > expose a device using EA to userspace as if those resources are
> > traditional BARs.  Pretty cool.  The vfio API is bus agnostic, so it
> > doesn't care about alignment.  The problem comes with PCI config space
> > emulation where we don't let userspace manipulate the BAR value, but
> > we do emulate BAR sizing.  The abstraction kind of falls apart if
> > userspace gets garbage when they try to size what appears to be a
> > traditional BAR, but is actually a BAR equivalent.
> > 
> > We could simply round up the size in vfio to make it naturally
> > aligned, but then we're imposing artificial sizes to the user and we
> > have the discontinuity that BAR size emulation and vfio region size
> > reporting don't agree on the size.  I think what we want to do is
> > expose EA to the user, reporting traditional BARs with BEIs as
> > zero-sized and providing additional regions for the user to access
> > each EA region, whether it has a BEI or not.
> > 
> > To facilitate that, a flag indicating whether a PCI resource is a
> > traditional BAR or BAR equivalent seems much nicer than attempting
> > to size the BAR ourselves or deducing it through the EA capability.
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> > ---
> 
> 
> Just to loop back on this, it seems like we do have some support and
> use cases beyond what I proposed.  Thanks for the discussion of that.
> However, I'm reluctant to post this formally because the change is user
> visible, it consumes a limited resource, and I don't know how quickly
> vfio-pci is going to be able to make use of this flag.  The vfio-pci
> work may not happen until a device appears with poorly sized resources
> that has some use case with vfio-pci.  Even then, we may be able to
> infer the BEI association without this flag.  So, while I'm not opposed
> to this flag, I don't see a need to drive it right now and those that
> do have a more immediate need are welcome to take over.  Thanks,
> 
> Alex
> 
> 

Thanks Alex,

I'll pick it up and fix the lspci case.

-Sean

> >  drivers/pci/pci.c      |    2 +-
> >  include/linux/ioport.h |    2 ++
> >  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > index 314db8c..174c734 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > @@ -2229,7 +2229,7 @@ void pci_pm_init(struct pci_dev *dev)
> >  
> >  static unsigned long pci_ea_flags(struct pci_dev *dev, u8 prop)
> >  {
> > -	unsigned long flags = IORESOURCE_PCI_FIXED;
> > +	unsigned long flags = IORESOURCE_PCI_FIXED | IORESOURCE_PCI_EA_BEI;
> >  
> >  	switch (prop) {
> >  	case PCI_EA_P_MEM:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/ioport.h b/include/linux/ioport.h
> > index 24bea08..5acc194 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/ioport.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/ioport.h
> > @@ -105,6 +105,8 @@ struct resource {
> >  /* PCI control bits.  Shares IORESOURCE_BITS with above PCI ROM.  */
> >  #define IORESOURCE_PCI_FIXED		(1<<4)	/* Do not move resource */
> >  
> > +/* PCI Enhanced Allocation defined BAR equivalent resource */
> > +#define IORESOURCE_PCI_EA_BEI		(1<<5)
> >  
> >  /* helpers to define resources */
> >  #define DEFINE_RES_NAMED(_start, _size, _name, _flags)			\
> > 
>