All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, timur@codeaurora.org,
	alex.williamson@redhat.com, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V9 1/2] PCI: handle CRS returned by device after FLR
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:54:47 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <da77e691-d1a1-5c69-c23e-69656a82f8f5@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <74b1fed6-4b3a-6053-2252-063462cffe4e@codeaurora.org>

On 8/10/2017 6:32 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> Alex was concerned that pci_bus_read_dev_vendor_id() could return
>> false ("no device here") with an ID value of ~0 for a functional VF
>> [1].
>>
>> I think that is indeed possible:
>>
>>   - a VF that is ready will return 0xffff as both Vendor ID and Device
>>     ID (SR-IOV r1.1, sec 3.4.1.1, .2), so the very first read in
>>     pci_bus_read_dev_vendor_id() would see 0xffffffff and return
>>     "false".
>>
>>   - a VF that needs more time will return CRS and we'll loop in
>>     pci_bus_read_dev_vendor_id() until it becomes ready, and we'll
>>     return "true".
>>
>> Falling into the code below for the "false" case probably will work,
>> but it's a little bit ugly because (a) we're using two mechanisms to
>> figure out when the device is ready for config requests, and (b) we
>> have to worry about VFs both in pci_bus_read_dev_vendor_id() and here
>> in the caller.
> OK, I'm open to improving the code.
> 
>> Here's an idea to make pci_bus_read_dev_vendor_id() work for both VFs
>> and PFs.  It can't distinguish the 0xffffffff from a VF vs one from a
>> non-existent device, but the caller might be able to pass that
>> information in, e.g., when we're enumerating and don't know whether
>> the device exists, we don't have a pci_dev and would use this:
> How about creating a pci_bus_wait_crs() function with the loop in 
> pci_bus_read_dev_vendor_id() and calling it from both places?
> 

I prototyped both of the options. I found pci_bus_wait_crs() to be cleaner
due to this. 

is_vf looked like another hack like mine to tap into the CRS handling
inside the pci_bus_read_dev_vendor_id().

I think the right thing is to make CRS handling a first class citizen rather
than hiding it and overriding functions with unnecessary parameters.

I'll post V10 in a minute. It passed my testing.

-- 
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: okaya@codeaurora.org (Sinan Kaya)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH V9 1/2] PCI: handle CRS returned by device after FLR
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:54:47 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <da77e691-d1a1-5c69-c23e-69656a82f8f5@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <74b1fed6-4b3a-6053-2252-063462cffe4e@codeaurora.org>

On 8/10/2017 6:32 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> Alex was concerned that pci_bus_read_dev_vendor_id() could return
>> false ("no device here") with an ID value of ~0 for a functional VF
>> [1].
>>
>> I think that is indeed possible:
>>
>>   - a VF that is ready will return 0xffff as both Vendor ID and Device
>>     ID (SR-IOV r1.1, sec 3.4.1.1, .2), so the very first read in
>>     pci_bus_read_dev_vendor_id() would see 0xffffffff and return
>>     "false".
>>
>>   - a VF that needs more time will return CRS and we'll loop in
>>     pci_bus_read_dev_vendor_id() until it becomes ready, and we'll
>>     return "true".
>>
>> Falling into the code below for the "false" case probably will work,
>> but it's a little bit ugly because (a) we're using two mechanisms to
>> figure out when the device is ready for config requests, and (b) we
>> have to worry about VFs both in pci_bus_read_dev_vendor_id() and here
>> in the caller.
> OK, I'm open to improving the code.
> 
>> Here's an idea to make pci_bus_read_dev_vendor_id() work for both VFs
>> and PFs.  It can't distinguish the 0xffffffff from a VF vs one from a
>> non-existent device, but the caller might be able to pass that
>> information in, e.g., when we're enumerating and don't know whether
>> the device exists, we don't have a pci_dev and would use this:
> How about creating a pci_bus_wait_crs() function with the loop in 
> pci_bus_read_dev_vendor_id() and calling it from both places?
> 

I prototyped both of the options. I found pci_bus_wait_crs() to be cleaner
due to this. 

is_vf looked like another hack like mine to tap into the CRS handling
inside the pci_bus_read_dev_vendor_id().

I think the right thing is to make CRS handling a first class citizen rather
than hiding it and overriding functions with unnecessary parameters.

I'll post V10 in a minute. It passed my testing.

-- 
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

  reply	other threads:[~2017-08-11 16:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-08-09  0:57 [PATCH V9 1/2] PCI: handle CRS returned by device after FLR Sinan Kaya
2017-08-09  0:57 ` Sinan Kaya
2017-08-09  0:57 ` Sinan Kaya
2017-08-09  0:57 ` [PATCH V9 2/2] PCI: display not responding message while device is unreachable Sinan Kaya
2017-08-09  0:57   ` Sinan Kaya
2017-08-09  0:57   ` Sinan Kaya
2017-08-10 21:52 ` [PATCH V9 1/2] PCI: handle CRS returned by device after FLR Bjorn Helgaas
2017-08-10 21:52   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2017-08-10 21:52   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2017-08-10 22:32   ` Sinan Kaya
2017-08-10 22:32     ` Sinan Kaya
2017-08-11 16:54     ` Sinan Kaya [this message]
2017-08-11 16:54       ` Sinan Kaya
2017-08-10 21:59 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2017-08-10 21:59   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2017-08-10 21:59   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2017-08-11  3:06   ` Sinan Kaya
2017-08-11  3:06     ` Sinan Kaya

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=da77e691-d1a1-5c69-c23e-69656a82f8f5@codeaurora.org \
    --to=okaya@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=timur@codeaurora.org \
    /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.