Re: [PATCH 02/11] PCI: Try to allocate mem64 above 4G at first

[Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>]

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:39:26AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:
> >> I don't really like the dependency on PCIBIOS_MAX_MEM_32 + 1ULL
> >> overflowing to zero -- that means the reader has to know what the
> >> value of PCIBIOS_MAX_MEM_32 is, and things would break in non-obvious
> >> ways if we changed it.
> >>
> 
> please check if attached one is more clear.
> 
> make max and bottom is only related to _MEM and not default one.
> 
> -       if (!(res->flags & IORESOURCE_MEM_64))
> -               max = PCIBIOS_MAX_MEM_32;
> +       if (res->flags & IORESOURCE_MEM) {
> +               if (!(res->flags & IORESOURCE_MEM_64))
> +                       max = PCIBIOS_MAX_MEM_32;
> +               else if (PCIBIOS_MAX_MEM_32 != -1)
> +                       bottom = (resource_size_t)(1ULL<<32);
> +       }
> 
> will still not affect to other arches.

That's goofy.  You're proposing to make only x86_64 and x86-PAE try to put
64-bit BARs above 4GB.  Why should this be specific to x86?  I acknowledge
that there's risk in doing this, but if it's a good idea for x86_64, it
should also be a good idea for other 64-bit architectures.

And testing for "is this x86_32 without PAE?" with
"PCIBIOS_MAX_MEM_32 == -1" is just plain obtuse and hides an
important bit of arch-specific behavior.

Tangential question about allocate_resource():  Is its "max" argument
really necessary?  We'll obviously only allocate from inside the root
resource, so "max" is just a way to artificially avoid the end of
that resource.  Is there really a case where that's required?

"min" makes sense because in a case like this, it's valid to allocate from
anywhere in the root resource, but we want to try to allocate from the >4GB
part first, then fall back to allocating from the whole resource.  I'm not
sure there's a corresponding case for "max."

Getting back to this patch, I don't think we should need to adjust "max" at
all.  For example, this:

commit cb1c8e46244cfd84a1a2fe91be860a74c1cf4e25
Author: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Date:   Thu May 24 22:15:26 2012 -0600

    PCI: try to allocate 64-bit mem resources above 4GB
    
    If we have a 64-bit mem resource, try to allocate it above 4GB first.  If
    that fails, we'll fall back to allocating space below 4GB.

diff --git a/drivers/pci/bus.c b/drivers/pci/bus.c
index 4ce5ef2..075e5b1 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/bus.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/bus.c
@@ -121,14 +121,16 @@ pci_bus_alloc_resource(struct pci_bus *bus, struct resource *res,
 {
 	int i, ret = -ENOMEM;
 	struct resource *r;
-	resource_size_t max = -1;
+	resource_size_t start = 0;
+	resource_size_t end = MAX_RESOURCE;
 
 	type_mask |= IORESOURCE_IO | IORESOURCE_MEM;
 
-	/* don't allocate too high if the pref mem doesn't support 64bit*/
-	if (!(res->flags & IORESOURCE_MEM_64))
-		max = PCIBIOS_MAX_MEM_32;
+	/* If this is a 64-bit mem resource, try above 4GB first */
+	if (res->flags & IORESOURCE_MEM_64)
+		start = (resource_size_t) (1ULL << 32);
 
+again:
 	pci_bus_for_each_resource(bus, r, i) {
 		if (!r)
 			continue;
@@ -145,12 +147,18 @@ pci_bus_alloc_resource(struct pci_bus *bus, struct resource *res,
 
 		/* Ok, try it out.. */
 		ret = allocate_resource(r, res, size,
-					r->start ? : min,
-					max, align,
+					max(start, r->start ? : min),
+					end, align,
 					alignf, alignf_data);
 		if (ret == 0)
-			break;
+			return 0;
+	}
+
+	if (start != 0) {
+		start = 0;
+		goto again;
 	}
+
 	return ret;
 }