Linux CXL
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: <alison.schofield@intel.com>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>,
	Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
	Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
	Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: <linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] cxl/region: Refactor granularity select in cxl_port_setup_targets()
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2023 19:49:14 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <64cdb8aa91847_2138e294bb@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230804232726.1672782-1-alison.schofield@intel.com>

alison.schofield@ wrote:
> From: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>
> 
> In cxl_port_setup_targets() the region driver validates the
> configuration of auto-discovered region decoders, as well
> as decoders the driver is preparing to program.
> 
> The existing calculations use the encrypted interleave granularity

s/encrypted/encoded/

> value, the eig, to create an interleave granularity that properly
> fans out when routing an x1 interleave to a greater than x1 interleave.
> 
> That all worked well, until this config came along:
> Host Bridge: 2 way at 256 granularity
>     Switch Decoder_A:	1 way at 512
>         Endpoint_X:	2 way at 512
>     Switch Decoder_B:	1 way at 512
>         Endpoint_Y:	2 way at 512
> 
> When the Host Bridge interleave is greater that 1, and the root

s/that/than/

> decoder interleave is exactly 1, the region driver needs to
> consider the number of targets in the region when calculating
> the expected granularity.
> 
> While examining the existing logic, and trying to cover the case
> above, a couple of simplifications appeared, hence this proposed
> refactoring.
> 
> The first simplicfication is to apply the logic to the unencrypted

s/unencrypted/nominal/

> values and use the existing helper function granularity_to_eig() to
> translate the desired granularity to the encrypted form. This means
> the comment and code regarding setting address bits is discarded.
> Although that logic was not wrong, it adds a level of complexity that
> is not required in the granularity selection. The eig and eiw are
> indeed part of the routing instructions programmed into the decoders.
> Up-level the discussion to plain ways and granularity for clearer
> analysis.
> 
> The second simplification reduces the logic to a single granularity
> calculation that works for all cases. The new calculation doesn't
> care if parent_iw => 1,  because parent_iw is used as a multiplier.
> 
> The refactor cleans up a useless assignment of eiw, made after the iw
> is already calculated.
> 
> Regression testing included an examination of all of the ways and
> granularity selections made during a run of the cxl_test unit tests.
> There were no differences in selections before and after this patch.

Fixes: ("27b3f8d13830 cxl/region: Program target lists")

> 
> Signed-off-by: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cxl/core/region.c | 17 ++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

Fix *and* less code!? Yes, please!

> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/region.c b/drivers/cxl/core/region.c
> index e115ba382e04..5a1cc59cca99 100644
> --- a/drivers/cxl/core/region.c
> +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/region.c
> @@ -1154,16 +1154,15 @@ static int cxl_port_setup_targets(struct cxl_port *port,
>  	}
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * If @parent_port is masking address bits, pick the next unused address
> -	 * bit to route @port's targets.
> +	 * Interleave granularity is a multiple of @parent_port granularity.
> +	 * Multiplier is the parent port interleave ways.
>  	 */
> -	if (parent_iw > 1 && cxl_rr->nr_targets > 1) {
> -		u32 address_bit = max(peig + peiw, eiw + peig);
> -
> -		eig = address_bit - eiw + 1;
> -	} else {
> -		eiw = peiw;
> -		eig = peig;
> +	rc = granularity_to_eig(parent_ig * parent_iw, &eig);

I was going to say "wait, does this work with x3 parent_iw", and I
believe it does because this:

                /*
                 * For purposes of address bit routing, use power-of-2 math for
                 * switch ports.
                 */
                if (!is_power_of_2(parent_iw))
                        parent_iw /= 3;

...is handled in the is_cxl_root(parent_port) case.

A thing of beauty this patch. Ship it! (modulo those minor nits above).

  reply	other threads:[~2023-08-05  2:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-08-04 23:27 [PATCH] cxl/region: Refactor granularity select in cxl_port_setup_targets() alison.schofield
2023-08-05  2:49 ` Dan Williams [this message]
2023-08-15  0:27   ` Alison Schofield
2023-08-07 13:26 ` Jonathan Cameron
2023-08-15  0:23   ` Alison Schofield
2023-08-09 22:28 ` Dave Jiang
2023-08-15  0:17   ` Alison Schofield

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=64cdb8aa91847_2138e294bb@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch \
    --to=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=alison.schofield@intel.com \
    --cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=ira.weiny@intel.com \
    --cc=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
    --cc=linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=vishal.l.verma@intel.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