From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: "Kobayashi,Daisuke" <kobayashi.da-06@fujitsu.com>,
<kobayashi.da-06@jp.fujitsu.com>, <linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: <y-goto@fujitsu.com>, <mj@ucw.cz>, <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
<jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>,
"Kobayashi,Daisuke" <kobayashi.da-06@fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 1/2] cxl/core/regs: Add rcd_pcie_cap initialization
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 19:36:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <668df392f2036_102cc2949a@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240618042941.96893-2-kobayashi.da-06@fujitsu.com>
Kobayashi,Daisuke wrote:
> Add rcd_pcie_cap and its initialization to cache the offset of cxl1.1
> device link status information. By caching it, avoid the walking
> memory map area to find the offset when output the register value.
>
> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: "Kobayashi,Daisuke" <kobayashi.da-06@fujitsu.com>
> ---
> drivers/cxl/core/core.h | 6 ++++
> drivers/cxl/core/regs.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/cxl/cxl.h | 9 ++++++
> drivers/cxl/pci.c | 8 ++++--
> 4 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/core.h b/drivers/cxl/core/core.h
> index 3b64fb1b9ed0..69006bde7ad5 100644
> --- a/drivers/cxl/core/core.h
> +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/core.h
> @@ -74,6 +74,12 @@ resource_size_t __rcrb_to_component(struct device *dev,
> struct cxl_rcrb_info *ri,
> enum cxl_rcrb which);
> u16 cxl_rcrb_to_aer(struct device *dev, resource_size_t rcrb);
> +resource_size_t cxl_rcrb_to_linkcap(struct device *dev, struct cxl_dport *dport);
Why is this function public? If it only has a caller within regs.c it
can be marked static.
> +#define PCI_RCRB_CAP_LIST_ID_MASK GENMASK(7, 0)
> +#define PCI_RCRB_CAP_HDR_ID_MASK GENMASK(7, 0)
> +#define PCI_RCRB_CAP_HDR_NEXT_MASK GENMASK(15, 8)
> +#define PCI_CAP_EXP_SIZEOF 0x3c
>
> extern struct rw_semaphore cxl_dpa_rwsem;
> extern struct rw_semaphore cxl_region_rwsem;
> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/regs.c b/drivers/cxl/core/regs.c
> index 372786f80955..8a7cef1cf87d 100644
> --- a/drivers/cxl/core/regs.c
> +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/regs.c
> @@ -505,6 +505,67 @@ u16 cxl_rcrb_to_aer(struct device *dev, resource_size_t rcrb)
> return offset;
> }
>
> +resource_size_t cxl_rcrb_to_linkcap(struct device *dev, struct cxl_dport *dport)
> +{
> + resource_size_t rcrb = dport->rcrb.base;
> + void __iomem *addr;
> + u32 cap_hdr;
> + u16 offset;
> +
> + if (!request_mem_region(rcrb, SZ_4K, "CXL RCRB"))
> + return CXL_RESOURCE_NONE;
> +
> + addr = ioremap(rcrb, SZ_4K);
> + if (!addr) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to map region %pr\n", addr);
> + release_mem_region(rcrb, SZ_4K);
> + return CXL_RESOURCE_NONE;
> + }
> +
> + offset = FIELD_GET(PCI_RCRB_CAP_LIST_ID_MASK, readw(addr + PCI_CAPABILITY_LIST));
> + cap_hdr = readl(addr + offset);
> + while ((FIELD_GET(PCI_RCRB_CAP_HDR_ID_MASK, cap_hdr)) != PCI_CAP_ID_EXP) {
> + offset = FIELD_GET(PCI_RCRB_CAP_HDR_NEXT_MASK, cap_hdr);
> + if (offset == 0 || offset > SZ_4K) {
> + offset = 0;
> + break;
> + }
> + cap_hdr = readl(addr + offset);
I would feel better if this duplicated __pci_find_next_cap_ttl() as
__rcrb_find_next_cap_ttl() and built an rcrb_find_capability() helper on
top of that.
> + }
> +
> + iounmap(addr);
> + release_mem_region(rcrb, SZ_4K);
> + if (!offset)
> + return CXL_RESOURCE_NONE;
> +
> + return offset;
> +}
> +
> +int cxl_dport_map_rcd_linkcap(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> +{
> + void __iomem *dport_pcie_cap = NULL;
> + resource_size_t rcd_pcie_offset;
> + struct cxl_rcrb_info *ri;
> + struct cxl_dport *dport;
> + struct cxl_port *port;
> +
> + port = cxl_pci_find_port(pdev, &dport);
> + if (!port)
> + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
There is a missing put_device() for this find. It also seems silly to
find the port again after already finding it for
cxl_rcrb_get_comp_regs().
> +
> + ri = &dport->rcrb;
> + rcd_pcie_offset = cxl_rcrb_to_linkcap(&pdev->dev, dport);
> + if (rcd_pcie_offset > 0)
This looks broken if cxl_rcrb_to_linkcap() returns CXL_RESOURCE_NONE.
Also, lets s/rcd_pcie_offset/pos/ since @pos is already the common
variable name for tracking PCI config register offsets.
> + dport_pcie_cap = devm_cxl_iomap_block(&pdev->dev,
> + ri->base + rcd_pcie_offset,
> + PCI_CAP_EXP_SIZEOF);
> +
> + dport->regs.rcd_pcie_cap = dport_pcie_cap;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(cxl_dport_map_rcd_linkcap, CXL);
> +
> resource_size_t __rcrb_to_component(struct device *dev, struct cxl_rcrb_info *ri,
> enum cxl_rcrb which)
> {
> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/cxl.h b/drivers/cxl/cxl.h
> index 003feebab79b..7e37ad6d84d6 100644
> --- a/drivers/cxl/cxl.h
> +++ b/drivers/cxl/cxl.h
> @@ -230,6 +230,14 @@ struct cxl_regs {
> struct_group_tagged(cxl_rch_regs, rch_regs,
> void __iomem *dport_aer;
> );
> +
> + /*
> + * RCD upstream port specific PCIe cap register
> + * @pcie_cap: CXL 3.0 8.2.1.2 RCD Upstream Port RCRB
> + */
> + struct_group_tagged(cxl_rcd_regs, rcd_regs,
> + void __iomem *rcd_pcie_cap;
> + );
> };
>
> struct cxl_reg_map {
> @@ -299,6 +307,7 @@ int cxl_setup_regs(struct cxl_register_map *map);
> struct cxl_dport;
> resource_size_t cxl_rcd_component_reg_phys(struct device *dev,
> struct cxl_dport *dport);
> +int cxl_dport_map_rcd_linkcap(struct pci_dev *pdev);
>
> #define CXL_RESOURCE_NONE ((resource_size_t) -1)
> #define CXL_TARGET_STRLEN 20
> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/pci.c b/drivers/cxl/pci.c
> index 2ff361e756d6..bbc55732d6c1 100644
> --- a/drivers/cxl/pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/cxl/pci.c
> @@ -512,11 +512,15 @@ static int cxl_pci_setup_regs(struct pci_dev *pdev, enum cxl_regloc_type type,
> * is an RCH and try to extract the Component Registers from
> * an RCRB.
> */
> - if (rc && type == CXL_REGLOC_RBI_COMPONENT && is_cxl_restricted(pdev))
> + if (rc && type == CXL_REGLOC_RBI_COMPONENT && is_cxl_restricted(pdev)) {
> rc = cxl_rcrb_get_comp_regs(pdev, map);
> + if (rc)
> + return rc;
>
> - if (rc)
> + cxl_dport_map_rcd_linkcap(pdev);
There is a chance that the port gets removed between finding it for
cxl_rcrb_get_comp_regs() and finding it again for
cxl_dport_map_rcd_linkcap(), so this misses the need to return
EPROBE_DEFER if that latter race is lost. However, is also a chance that
race can be lost *internal* to cxl_rcrb_get_comp_regs().
The only guarantee of cxl_pci_find_port() is that it returns a 'struct
cxl_port' instance that will not be freed until put_device(&port->dev),
but it makes no guarantee that the dport information is stable over that
lifetime. I think this needs a leading fix patch that finds and locks
the port and then passes that port to cxl_rcrb_get_comp_regs() and
cxl_dport_map_rcd_linkcap().
Otherwise I think you could crash the kernel with a test that repeatedly
reloads the cxl_acpi module while also reloading cxl_pci.
Ugh, I was going to say copy what cxl_mem_probe() does around locking
endpoint_parent before attaching further ports, but that also appears to
not handle the same race. I.e. I think cxl_mem_probe() needs a fix to do
this as well. I will copy you on a proposed patch for that.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-10 2:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-18 4:29 [PATCH v14 0/2] Export cxl1.1 device link status register value to pci device sysfs Kobayashi,Daisuke
2024-06-18 4:29 ` [PATCH v14 1/2] cxl/core/regs: Add rcd_pcie_cap initialization Kobayashi,Daisuke
2024-07-10 2:36 ` Dan Williams [this message]
2024-07-10 6:08 ` Dan Williams
2024-07-10 8:10 ` Daisuke Kobayashi (Fujitsu)
2024-07-11 1:34 ` Dan Williams
2024-06-18 4:29 ` [PATCH v14 2/2] cxl/pci: Add sysfs attribute for CXL 1.1 device link status Kobayashi,Daisuke
2024-07-08 3:05 ` [PATCH v14 0/2] Export cxl1.1 device link status register value to pci device sysfs Daisuke Kobayashi (Fujitsu)
2024-07-08 16:23 ` Dave Jiang
2024-07-09 8:00 ` Daisuke Kobayashi (Fujitsu)
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=668df392f2036_102cc2949a@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch \
--to=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=kobayashi.da-06@fujitsu.com \
--cc=kobayashi.da-06@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mj@ucw.cz \
--cc=y-goto@fujitsu.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