linux-pci.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Yang <weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Cc: Richard Yang <weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Does my understanding correct?
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 23:21:14 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120506152114.GB7773@richard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAErSpo40hwqdnUOmjbdm+3TNt_w0rYg6-qD7nYmauRvaQXhkiQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 10:39:42AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Richard Yang
><weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 08:59:40AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Richard Yang
>>><weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 09:56:13AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>>>On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Richard Yang
>>>>><weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your nice chart.
>>>>>I think assignments shown for the PCIe-to-PCI bridge are OK, although
>>>>>I would draw it like this because the bridge originates a single bus
>>>>>02 that may have multiple devices attached to it (this side is PCI,
>>>>>not PCIe, so it really is a shared bus):
>>>>>
>>>>>                                 ^
>>>>>                                 |
>>>>>                        +--------+--------+
>>>>>                        |     00:02.0     |
>>>>>                        | PCIe-PCI bridge |
>>>>>                        |                 |
>>>>>                        +--------+--------+
>>>>>                                 |
>>>>>                                 |
>>>>>                      +---------------------+    Bus 02
>>>>>                      |                     |
>>>>>                      |                     |
>>>>>                      |                     |
>>>>>                 +----v----+           +----v----+
>>>>>                 | 02:00.0 |           | 02:01.0 |
>>>>>                 +---------+           +---------+
>>>>>
>>>> So for this case, there is not internal bus, while this is really a
>>>> physical shared bus, not a logical one.
>>>
>>>Yes.  The downstream side of the PCIe-PCI bridge is PCI.
>>>
>>>>>I think the PCIe switch part is incorrect.  Here's Figure 1-3 from sec
>>>>>1.3.3 of the PCIe r3 spec:
>>>>
>>>>>A PCIe switch appears as two or more PCI-PCI bridges.  One is
>>>>>associated with the upstream port; the others with the downstream
>>>>>ports.
>>>>>
>>>>>A bridge always has a primary side and a secondary side.  In your
>>>>>diagram, the bridge associated with the upstream port would be 00:01.0
>>>>>(primary bus 00) and could have a secondary bus of 03 (since 02 is
>>>>>already consumed by the PCIe-PCI bridge).
>>>> Hmm... I am confused why is 03. 02 is used but 01 is not used.
>>>> Switch should be configured after PCIe2PCI bridge?
>>>
>>>It's likely that the PCIe switch would be configured first, since its
>>>device number is lower, but that is not a requirement.  The
>>>requirement is that the bus number ranges consumed by bridges be
>>>non-overlapping.  In this case (using your original topology plus my
>>>PCIe switch diagram), we'd have:
>>>
>>>  1. an endpoint at 00:00.0 -- consumes no additional buses
>>>  2. a PCIe switch at 00:01.0 -- consumes at least [bus 03-06]
>>>  3. a PCIe-PCI bridge at 00:02.0 -- consumes least [bus 02] (its secondary bus)
>
>> So this is a sequence issue. Below is also a valid configuration.
>>  2. a PCIe switch at 00:01.0 -- consumes at least [bus 02-05]
>>  3. a PCIe-PCI bridge at 00:02.0 -- consumes least [bus 06] (its secondary bus)
>
>Yes, this would also be valid.
>
>>>Bus 03 is the internal PCIe switch bus that connects the upstream port
>>>to the downstream ports.  Buses 04, 05, and 06 are the links
>>>originating from the downstream ports.
>>>
>>>>>The bridges associated with the downstream ports are all logically on
>>>>>bus 03.  Their primary bus number would be 03; they might be 03:00.0,
>>>>>03:01.0, 03:02.0, etc.  Each would have its own secondary bus number,
>>>>>for example 04, 05, 06.  That secondary bus number is for the
>>>>>downstream link from the corresponding downstream port.
>>>> Hmm, as you mentioned in previous letter, PCIe is an point-to-point
>>>> protocol, then the secondary bus should reside in the Switch?
>>>> Do you think my Bus#4 is correct?
>>>
>>>No.  Bus 04 is a PCIe link that connects the downstream port (03:00.0)
>>>to a single PCIe device.  That device (04:00) could be a PCIe
>>>endpoint, or it could be the upstream port of another PCIe switch.
>>>(If it is a switch, more bus numbers would be required.)
>>
>>
>>                                      ^
>>                                      |
>>      +-------------------------------|------------------------------+
>>      |                               |                              |
>>      |                          +----+----+                         |
>>      |                          | virtual |                         |
>>      |                          | PCI-PCI |                         |
>>      |                          | bridge  |                         |
>>      |                          +----+----+                         |
>>      |                               |                              |
>>      |                               |Bus#3                         |
>>      |                               |                              |
>>      |          +----------------------------------------+          |
>>      |          |                    |                   |          |
>>      |          |                    |                   |          |
>>      |          |03:00.0             |03:01.0            |03:02.0   |
>>      |     +----+----+          +----+----+         +----++---+     |
>>      |     | virtual |          | virtual |         | virtual |     |
>>      |     | PCI-PCI |          | PCI-PCI |         | PCI-PCI |     |
>>      |     | bridge  |          | bridge  |         | bridge  |     |
>>      |     +----+----+          +----+----+         +----+----+     |
>>      |          |                    |                   |          |
>>      |          |                    |                   |          |
>>      +----------|--------------------|-------------------|----------+
>>                 | Bus#4?             |                   |
>>                 v                    v                   v
>>
>> So the link itself is Bus#4?
Bjorn,
Sorry to disturb you again. 

If under this link, one SRIOV device is attached. 
And VF is enabled, more than 256 VFs. 
How the Bus#4 handle those PFs and VFs?
How new Buses is organized?
Or this is not standarded?
>
>Exactly.
>
>> If there is no device under this link, will Bus#4 appear in kernel?
>
>Yes, I'm pretty sure we build the bus 04 pci_bus structure, then scan
>bus 04 for devices.  Even if we find none, the pci_bus struct for bus
>04 remains.
>
>> And then the PCIe switch is represented by 4 pci_dev structure and each
>> is bridge type?
>
>Yes.  And each has an associated pci_bus struct for its secondary bus.
>
>Bjorn

-- 
Richard Yang
Help you, Help me


  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-05-06 15:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-04-27  9:27 Does my understanding correct? Richard Yang
2012-04-27 14:10 ` Jiang Liu
2012-04-27 15:55   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-04-27 14:17 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-04-28  5:01   ` Richard Yang
2012-04-28  7:21     ` Richard Yang
2012-04-30 15:56     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-05-02  6:24       ` Richard Yang
2012-05-02 14:59         ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-05-02 21:05           ` Don Dutile
2012-05-03  6:21           ` Richard Yang
2012-05-03 16:39             ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-05-04  2:11               ` Richard Yang
2012-05-06 15:21               ` Richard Yang [this message]
2012-05-07  3:00               ` Richard Yang
2012-04-28  8:21   ` Richard Yang

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=20120506152114.GB7773@richard \
    --to=weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.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 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).