All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yijing Wang <wangyijing@huawei.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@linux.intel.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Subject: Re: Removal of bus->msi assignment breaks MSI with stacked domains
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 09:54:40 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <546E9B60.9070706@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1411202355060.6439@nanos>

>> Thomas, let me know if you want to do that.  I suppose we could add a new
>> patch to add it back, but that would leave bisection broken for the
>> interval between c167caf8d174 and the patch that adds it back.
> 
> Fortunately my irq/irqdomain branch is not immutable yet. So we have
> no problem at that point. I can rebase on your branch until tomorrow
> night. Or just rebase on mainline and we sort out the merge conflicts
> later, i.e. delegate them to Linus so his job of pulling stuff gets
> not completely boring.

Hi Thomas, sorry for my introducing the broken.

> 
> What I'm more worried about is whether this intended change is going
> to inflict a problem on Jiangs intention to deduce the MSI irq domain
> from the device, which we really need for making DMAR work w/o going
> through loops and hoops.
> 
> I have limited knowledge about the actual scope of iommu (DMAR) units
> versus device/bus/host-controllers, so I would appreciate a proper
> explanation for that from you or Jiang or both.

In my personal opinion, if it's not necessary, we should not put stuff
into pci_dev or pci_bus. If we plan to save msi_controller in pci_bus or
pci_dev.
I have a proposal, I would be appreciated if you could give some comments.
First we refactor pci_host_bridge to make a generic
pci_host_bridge, then we could save pci domain in it to eliminate
arch specific functions. I aslo wanted to save msi_controller as
pci domain, but now Jiang refactor hierarchy irq domain, and
pci devices under the same pci host bridge may need to associate
to different msi_controllers.

So I want to associate a msi_controller finding ops with generic pci_host_bridge,
then every pci device could find its msi_controller/irq_domain by a
common function

E.g

struct msi_controller *pci_msi_controller(struct pci_dev *pdev)
{
	struct msi_controller *ctrl;
	struct pci_host_bridge *host = find_pci_host_bridge(pdev->bus);
	if (host && host->pci_get_msi_controller)
		ctrl = pci_host_bridge->pci_get_msi_controller(struct pci_dev *pdev);

	return ctrl;	
}

If I miss something, please let me know, thanks.

Thanks!
Yijing.


> 
> My guts feeling tells me that anything less granular than the bus
> level is wrong and according to my limited knowledge Intel even has
> DMARs which are assigned to a single device it's even more wrong. So
> the proper change would be not to push it from bus to something above
> the bus, but instead make it a per device property.
> 
> But my knowledge there is limited, so I rely on the PCI/architecture
> experts to sort that out.
> 
> Let me know ASAP.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
> 
> .
> 


-- 
Thanks!
Yijing


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: wangyijing@huawei.com (Yijing Wang)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Removal of bus->msi assignment breaks MSI with stacked domains
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 09:54:40 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <546E9B60.9070706@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1411202355060.6439@nanos>

>> Thomas, let me know if you want to do that.  I suppose we could add a new
>> patch to add it back, but that would leave bisection broken for the
>> interval between c167caf8d174 and the patch that adds it back.
> 
> Fortunately my irq/irqdomain branch is not immutable yet. So we have
> no problem at that point. I can rebase on your branch until tomorrow
> night. Or just rebase on mainline and we sort out the merge conflicts
> later, i.e. delegate them to Linus so his job of pulling stuff gets
> not completely boring.

Hi Thomas, sorry for my introducing the broken.

> 
> What I'm more worried about is whether this intended change is going
> to inflict a problem on Jiangs intention to deduce the MSI irq domain
> from the device, which we really need for making DMAR work w/o going
> through loops and hoops.
> 
> I have limited knowledge about the actual scope of iommu (DMAR) units
> versus device/bus/host-controllers, so I would appreciate a proper
> explanation for that from you or Jiang or both.

In my personal opinion, if it's not necessary, we should not put stuff
into pci_dev or pci_bus. If we plan to save msi_controller in pci_bus or
pci_dev.
I have a proposal, I would be appreciated if you could give some comments.
First we refactor pci_host_bridge to make a generic
pci_host_bridge, then we could save pci domain in it to eliminate
arch specific functions. I aslo wanted to save msi_controller as
pci domain, but now Jiang refactor hierarchy irq domain, and
pci devices under the same pci host bridge may need to associate
to different msi_controllers.

So I want to associate a msi_controller finding ops with generic pci_host_bridge,
then every pci device could find its msi_controller/irq_domain by a
common function

E.g

struct msi_controller *pci_msi_controller(struct pci_dev *pdev)
{
	struct msi_controller *ctrl;
	struct pci_host_bridge *host = find_pci_host_bridge(pdev->bus);
	if (host && host->pci_get_msi_controller)
		ctrl = pci_host_bridge->pci_get_msi_controller(struct pci_dev *pdev);

	return ctrl;	
}

If I miss something, please let me know, thanks.

Thanks!
Yijing.


> 
> My guts feeling tells me that anything less granular than the bus
> level is wrong and according to my limited knowledge Intel even has
> DMARs which are assigned to a single device it's even more wrong. So
> the proper change would be not to push it from bus to something above
> the bus, but instead make it a per device property.
> 
> But my knowledge there is limited, so I rely on the PCI/architecture
> experts to sort that out.
> 
> Let me know ASAP.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
> 
> .
> 


-- 
Thanks!
Yijing

  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-11-21  1:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-11-20 16:31 Removal of bus->msi assignment breaks MSI with stacked domains Marc Zyngier
2014-11-20 16:31 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-20 21:53 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2014-11-20 21:53   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2014-11-20 23:10   ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-11-20 23:10     ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-11-20 23:30     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2014-11-20 23:30       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2014-11-21  9:33       ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21  9:33         ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21  1:54     ` Yijing Wang [this message]
2014-11-21  1:54       ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21  2:25       ` Jiang Liu
2014-11-21  2:25         ` Jiang Liu
2014-11-21  3:46         ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21  3:46           ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21 10:00       ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21 10:00         ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21 17:31       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2014-11-21 17:31         ` Bjorn Helgaas
2014-11-22  4:13         ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-22  4:13           ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21  1:22 ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21  1:22   ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21  1:46   ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-11-21  1:46     ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-11-21  2:03     ` Jiang Liu
2014-11-21  2:03       ` Jiang Liu
2014-11-21  2:12       ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21  2:12         ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21  2:05     ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21  2:05       ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21  8:46       ` Lucas Stach
2014-11-21  8:46         ` Lucas Stach
2014-11-21 10:29     ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21 10:29       ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21 10:49       ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-11-21 10:49         ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-11-21 11:30         ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21 11:30           ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21 12:04       ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21 12:04         ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21 10:11   ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21 10:11     ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21 11:57     ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21 11:57       ` Yijing Wang

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=546E9B60.9070706@huawei.com \
    --to=wangyijing@huawei.com \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=jiang.liu@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.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.