From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To: Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
Pasha Tatashin <tatashin@google.com>,
Jason Miu <jasonmiu@google.com>,
Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>,
Adithya Jayachandran <ajayachandra@nvidia.com>,
Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com>, William Tu <witu@nvidia.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
Junaid Shahid <junaids@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 20/25] PCI/LUO: Avoid write to liveupdate devices at boot
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2025 10:50:34 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250802135034.GJ26511@ziepe.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAF8kJuPbJWea+o=GTFEM6KRCq4DxDad+83+vM0Np+n=Mmzqzag@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Aug 01, 2025 at 04:04:39PM -0700, Chris Li wrote:
> My philosophy is that the LUO PCI subsystem is for service of the PCI
> device driver. Ultimately it is the PCI device driver who decides what
> part of the config space they want to preserve or overwrite. The PCI
> layer is just there to facilitate that service.
I don't think this makes any sense at all. There is nothing the device
driver can contribute here.
> If you still think it is unjustifiable to have one test try to
> preserve all config space for liveupdate.
I do think it is unjustifiable, it is architecurally wrong. You only
should be preserving the absolute bare minimum of config space bits
and everything else should be rewritten by the next kernel in the
normal way. This MSI is a prime example of a nonsensical outcome if
you take the position the config space should not be written to.
> > Only some config accesse are bad. Each and every "bad" one needs to be
> > clearly explained *why* it is bad and only then mitigated.
>
> That is exactly the reason why we have the conservative test that
> preserves every config space test as a starting point.
That is completely the opposite of what I said. Preserving everything
is giving up on the harder job of identifying which bits cannot be
changed, explaining why they can't be changed, and then mitigating
only those things.
> Another constraint is that the data center servers are dependent on
> the network device able to connect to the network appropriately. Take
> diorite NIC for example, if I try only preserving ATS/PASID did not
> finish the rest of liveupdate, the nic wasn't able to boot up and
> connect to the network all the way. Even if the test passes for the
> ATS part, the over test fails because the server is not back online. I
> can't include that test into the test dashboard, because it brings
> down the server. The only way to recover from that is rebooting the
> server, which takes a long time for a big server. I can only keep that
> non-passing test as my own private developing test, not the regression
> test set.
I have no idea what this is trying to say and it sounds like you also
can't explain exactly what is "wrong" and justify why things are being
preserved.
Again, your series should be starting simpler. Perserve the dumbest
simplest PCI configuration. Certainly no switches, P2P, ATS or
PASID. When that is working you can then add on more complex PCI
features piece by piece.
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-02 13:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-28 8:24 [RFC PATCH 00/25] Live Update Orchestrator: PCI subsystem Chris Li
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 01/25] PCI/LUO: Register with Liveupdate Orchestrator Chris Li
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 02/25] PCI/LUO: Add struct dev_liveupdate Chris Li
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 03/25] PCI/LUO: Create requested liveupdate device list Chris Li
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 04/25] PCI/LUO: Forward prepare()/freeze()/cancel() callbacks to driver Chris Li
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 05/25] PCI/LUO: Restore state at PCI enumeration Chris Li
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 06/25] PCI/LUO: Forward finish callbacks to drivers Chris Li
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 07/25] PCI/LUO: Save and restore driver name Chris Li
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 08/25] PCI/LUO: Add liveupdate to pcieport driver Chris Li
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 09/25] PCI/LUO: Save SR-IOV number of VF Chris Li
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 10/25] PCI/LUO: Add pci_liveupdate_get_driver_data() Chris Li
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 11/25] PCI: pci-lu-stub: Add a stub driver for Live Update testing Chris Li
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 12/25] PCI/LUO: Save struct pci_dev info during prepare phase chrisl
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 13/25] PCI/LUO: Check the device function numbers in restoration chrisl
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 14/25] PCI/LUO: Restore power state of a PCI device chrisl
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 15/25] PCI/LUO: Restore PM related fields chrisl
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 16/25] PCI/LUO: Restore the pme_poll flag chrisl
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 17/25] PCI/LUO: Restore the no_d3cold flag chrisl
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 18/25] PCI/LUO: Restore pci_dev fields during probe chrisl
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 19/25] PCI/LUO: Track liveupdate buses Chris Li
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 20/25] PCI/LUO: Avoid write to liveupdate devices at boot Chris Li
2025-07-28 17:23 ` Thomas Gleixner
2025-07-28 23:50 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-07-30 4:13 ` Chris Li
2025-07-30 1:51 ` Chris Li
2025-07-31 15:01 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-08-01 23:04 ` Chris Li
2025-08-02 13:50 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2025-08-07 0:50 ` Chris Li
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 21/25] PCI/LUO: Save and restore the PCI resource chrisl
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 22/25] PCI/LUO: Save PCI bus and host bridge states chrisl
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 23/25] PCI/LUO: Check the PCI bus state after restoration chrisl
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 24/25] PCI: pci-lu-pf-stub: Add a PF stub driver for Live Update testing Chris Li
2025-07-28 8:24 ` [PATCH RFC 25/25] PCI/LUO: Clean up PCI_SER_GET() chrisl
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250802135034.GJ26511@ziepe.ca \
--to=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=ajayachandra@nvidia.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=chrisl@kernel.org \
--cc=dakr@kernel.org \
--cc=dmatlack@google.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jasonmiu@google.com \
--cc=junaids@google.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=leon@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=parav@nvidia.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=saeedm@nvidia.com \
--cc=tatashin@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vipinsh@google.com \
--cc=witu@nvidia.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.