From: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>
To: Evangelos Petrongonas <epetron@amazon.de>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>, Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>,
Jason Miu <jasonmiu@google.com>,
"Pratyush Yadav" <pratyush@kernel.org>,
Stanislav Spassov <stanspas@amazon.de>,
<linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <nh-open-source@amazon.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/13] pci: pcsc: infer cacheability of PCI capabilities
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 15:17:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251009151736.00002f45@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fb2f262e4733a56bf0ebd9ef5c9325880aea05cd.1759312886.git.epetron@amazon.de>
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 09:00:39 +0000
Evangelos Petrongonas <epetron@amazon.de> wrote:
> Implement cacheability inference for PCI capabilities to
> determine which configuration space registers can be safely cached.
>
> The first 64 bytes of PCI configuration space follow a standardized
> format, allowing straightforward cacheability determination. For
> capability-specific registers, the implementation traverses the PCI
> capability list to identify supported capabilities.
>
> Cacheable registers are identified for the following capabilities:
> - Power Management (PM)
> - Message Signaled Interrupts (MSI)
> - Message Signaled Interrupts Extensions (MSI-X)
> - PCI Express
> - PCI Advanced Features (AF)
> - Enhanced Allocation (EA)
> - Vital Product Data (VPD)
> - Vendor Specific
>
> The implementation pre-populates the cache with known values including
> device/vendor IDs and header type to avoid unnecessary configuration
> space reads during initialization.
>
> We are currently not caching the Command/Status registers.
>
> The cacheability of all capabilities apart from MSI, are straightforward
> and can be deduced from the spec. Regarding MSI the MSI flags are read
> and based on this, the cacheability is inferred.
>
> Signed-off-by: Evangelos Petrongonas <epetron@amazon.de>
> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Spassov <stanspas@amazon.de>
A few minor things below.
> +
> +static void infer_capabilities_pointers(struct pci_dev *dev)
> +{
> + u8 pos, cap_id, next_cap;
> + u32 val;
> + int i;
> +
> + if (pcsc_hw_config_read(dev->bus, dev->devfn, PCI_CAPABILITY_LIST, 1,
> + &val) != PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL)
> + return;
> +
> + pos = (val & 0xFF) & ~0x3;
Given single byte read, shouldn't need the 0xFF masking.
Might be worth setting val = 0 at declaration though so that the compiler
can see it is assigned if we reach here.
> +
> + while (pos) {
> + if (pos < 0x40 || pos > 0xFE)
> + break;
> +
> + pos &= ~0x3;
I couldn't immediately find a spec statement of the bottom two bits being 0 for
the next capability pointers. (There is one for the PCI_CAPABILITY_LIST)
> + if (pcsc_hw_config_read(dev->bus, dev->devfn, pos, 2, &val) !=
> + PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL)
> + break;
> +
> + cap_id = val & 0xFF; /* PCI_CAP_LIST_ID */
> + next_cap = (val >> 8) & 0xFF; /* PCI_CAP_LIST_NEXT */
> +
> + bitmap_set(dev->pcsc->cachable_bitmask, pos, 2);
> + pcsc_update_byte(dev, pos, cap_id); /* PCI_CAP_LIST_ID */
> + pcsc_update_byte(dev, pos + 1,
> + next_cap); /* PCI_CAP_LIST_NEXT */
Could you do something like moving the bitmap_set before the pcsc_hw_config_read() and
cal pcsc_cached_config_read() to fill the cache directly during the read?
> +
> + pci_dbg(dev, "Capability ID %#x found at %#x\n", cap_id, pos);
> +
> + /* Check if this is a supported capability and infer cacheability */
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(PCSC_SUPPORTED_CAPABILITIES); i++) {
> + if (cap_id == PCSC_SUPPORTED_CAPABILITIES[i]) {
> + infer_capability_cacheability(dev, pos, cap_id);
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + /* Move to next capability */
> + pos = next_cap;
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static void infer_cacheability(struct pci_dev *dev)
> +{
> + if (WARN_ON(!dev || !dev->pcsc || !dev->pcsc->cfg_space))
> + return;
> +
> + bitmap_zero(dev->pcsc->cachable_bitmask, PCSC_CFG_SPC_SIZE);
> +
> + /* Type 0 Configuration Space Header */
> + if (dev->hdr_type == PCI_HEADER_TYPE_NORMAL) {
Unless you plan to add type 1 very soon I'd flip the logic to reduce
indent of the code that follows.
> + /*
> + * Mark cacheable registers in the PCI configuration space header.
> + * We cache read-only and rarely changing registers:
> + * - PCI_VENDOR_ID, PCI_DEVICE_ID (0x00-0x03)
> + * - PCI_CLASS_REVISION through PCI_CAPABILITY_LIST (0x08-0x34)
> + * Includes: CLASS_REVISION, CACHE_LINE_SIZE, LATENCY_TIMER,
> + * HEADER_TYPE, BIST, BASE_ADDRESS_0-5, CARDBUS_CIS,
> + * SUBSYSTEM_VENDOR_ID, SUBSYSTEM_ID, ROM_ADDRESS, CAPABILITY_LIST
> + * - PCI_INTERRUPT_LINE through PCI_MAX_LAT (0x3c-0x3f)
> + * Includes: INTERRUPT_LINE, INTERRUPT_PIN, MIN_GNT, MAX_LAT
> + */
> + bitmap_set(dev->pcsc->cachable_bitmask, PCI_VENDOR_ID, 4);
> + bitmap_set(dev->pcsc->cachable_bitmask, PCI_CLASS_REVISION, 45);
For this large range can you derive that 45 as something like
PCI_CAPABILITY_LIST - PCI_CLASS_REVISION + 1
Same applies for the other multifield bitmap sets
> + bitmap_set(dev->pcsc->cachable_bitmask, PCI_INTERRUPT_LINE, 4);
> +
> + /* Pre populate the cache with the values that we already know */
I'm curious - do you have perf numbers to show it's worth writing these 5 bytes
directly into the cache? Feels like complexity that maybe doesn't belong there
in initial patch but should come along later in a patch with numbers to support
the small amount of extra complexity.
> + pcsc_update_byte(dev, PCI_HEADER_TYPE,
> + dev->hdr_type |
> + (dev->multifunction ? 0x80 : 0));
> +
> + /*
> + * SR-IOV VFs must return 0xFFFF (PCI_ANY_ID) for vendor/device ID
> + * registers per PCIe spec.
> + */
> + if (dev->is_virtfn) {
> + pcsc_update_byte(dev, PCI_VENDOR_ID, 0xFF);
> + pcsc_update_byte(dev, PCI_VENDOR_ID + 1, 0xFF);
> + pcsc_update_byte(dev, PCI_DEVICE_ID, 0xFF);
> + pcsc_update_byte(dev, PCI_DEVICE_ID + 1, 0xFF);
> + } else {
> + if (dev->vendor != PCI_ANY_ID) {
> + pcsc_update_byte(dev, PCI_VENDOR_ID,
> + dev->vendor & 0xFF);
> + pcsc_update_byte(dev, PCI_VENDOR_ID + 1,
> + (dev->vendor >> 8) & 0xFF);
> + }
> + if (dev->device != PCI_ANY_ID) {
> + pcsc_update_byte(dev, PCI_DEVICE_ID,
> + dev->device & 0xFF);
> + pcsc_update_byte(dev, PCI_DEVICE_ID + 1,
> + (dev->device >> 8) & 0xFF);
> + }
> + }
> +
> + infer_capabilities_pointers(dev);
> + }
> +}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-09 14:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-03 9:00 [RFC PATCH 00/13] Introduce PCI Configuration Space Cache (PCSC) Evangelos Petrongonas
2025-10-03 9:00 ` [RFC PATCH 01/13] pci: pcsc: Add plumbing for the " Evangelos Petrongonas
2025-10-09 12:38 ` Jonathan Cameron
2025-10-03 9:00 ` [RFC PATCH 02/13] pci: pcsc: implement basic functionality Evangelos Petrongonas
2025-10-09 13:12 ` Jonathan Cameron
2025-10-03 9:00 ` [RFC PATCH 03/13] pci: pcsc: infer cacheability of PCI capabilities Evangelos Petrongonas
2025-10-09 14:17 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2025-10-03 9:00 ` [RFC PATCH 04/13] pci: pcsc: infer PCIe extended capabilities Evangelos Petrongonas
2025-10-09 14:24 ` Jonathan Cameron
2025-10-03 9:00 ` [RFC PATCH 05/13] pci: pcsc: control the cache via sysfs and kernel params Evangelos Petrongonas
2025-10-09 14:41 ` Jonathan Cameron
2025-10-03 9:00 ` [RFC PATCH 06/13] pci: pcsc: handle device resets Evangelos Petrongonas
2025-10-09 14:49 ` Jonathan Cameron
2025-10-03 9:00 ` [RFC PATCH 07/13] pci: pcsc: introduce statistic gathering tools Evangelos Petrongonas
2025-10-09 14:56 ` Jonathan Cameron
2025-10-03 9:00 ` [RFC PATCH 08/13] pci: Save only spec-defined configuration space Evangelos Petrongonas
2025-10-09 14:58 ` Jonathan Cameron
2025-10-03 9:00 ` [RFC PATCH 09/13] vfio: pci: Fill only spec-defined configuration space regions Evangelos Petrongonas
2025-10-03 9:00 ` [RFC PATCH 10/13] pci: pcsc: Use contiguous pages for the cache data Evangelos Petrongonas
2025-10-03 9:00 ` [RFC PATCH 11/13] pci: pcsc: Add kexec persistence support via KHO Evangelos Petrongonas
2025-10-03 9:00 ` [RFC PATCH 12/13] pci: pcsc: introduce persistence versioning Evangelos Petrongonas
2025-10-03 9:00 ` [RFC PATCH 13/13] pci: pcsc: introduce hashtable lookup to speed up restoration Evangelos Petrongonas
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=20251009151736.00002f45@huawei.com \
--to=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=chrisl@kernel.org \
--cc=dmatlack@google.com \
--cc=epetron@amazon.de \
--cc=jasonmiu@google.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nh-open-source@amazon.com \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=pratyush@kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=stanspas@amazon.de \
--cc=vipinsh@google.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).