From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xuyandong <xuyandong2@huawei.com>,
stable@vger.kernel.org, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PCI: avoid bridge feature re-probing on hotplug
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 13:49:50 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181220194950.GD183878@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181218004455.20186-1-mst@redhat.com>
Hi Michael,
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 07:45:41PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> commit 1f82de10d6b1 ("PCI/x86: don't assume prefetchable ranges are 64bit")
> added probing of bridge support for 64 bit memory each time bridge is
> re-enumerated.
>
> Unfortunately this probing is destructive if any device behind
> the bridge is in use at this time.
>
> This was observed in the field, see
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-12/msg01711.html
> and specifically
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-12/msg02082.html
>
> There's no real need to re-probe the bridge features as the
> registers in question never change - detect that using
> the memory flag being set (it's always set on the 1st pass since
> all PCI2PCI bridges support memory forwarding) and skip the probing.
> Thus, only the first call will perform the disruptive probing and sets
> the resource flags as required - which we can be reasonably sure happens
> before any devices have been configured.
> Avoiding repeated calls to pci_bridge_check_ranges might be even nicer.
> Unfortunately I couldn't come up with a clean way to do it without a
> major probing code refactoring.
I'm OK with major probe code refactoring as long as it's done
carefully. Doing a special-case fix like this solves the immediate
problem but adds to the long-term maintenance problem.
As far as I can tell, everything in pci_bridge_check_ranges() should
be done once at enumeration-time, e.g., in the pci_read_bridge_bases()
path, and pci_bridge_check_ranges() itself should be removed.
If that turns out to be impossible for some reason, we need a comment
explaining why.
> Reported-by: xuyandong <xuyandong2@huawei.com>
> Tested-by: xuyandong <xuyandong2@huawei.com>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
> Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> ---
>
> Please review and consider for stable.
>
> changes from v1:
> comment and commit log updates to address comments by Bjorn.
>
> drivers/pci/setup-bus.c | 10 ++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
> index ed960436df5e..d5c25d465d97 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
> @@ -741,6 +741,16 @@ static void pci_bridge_check_ranges(struct pci_bus *bus)
> struct resource *b_res;
>
> b_res = &bridge->resource[PCI_BRIDGE_RESOURCES];
> +
> + /*
> + * Don't re-check after this was called once already:
> + * important since bridge might be in use.
> + * Note: this is only reliable because as per spec all PCI to PCI
> + * bridges support memory unconditionally so IORESOURCE_MEM is set.
> + */
> + if (b_res[1].flags & IORESOURCE_MEM)
> + return;
> +
> b_res[1].flags |= IORESOURCE_MEM;
>
> pci_read_config_word(bridge, PCI_IO_BASE, &io);
> --
> MST
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-20 19:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-18 0:45 [PATCH v2] PCI: avoid bridge feature re-probing on hotplug Michael S. Tsirkin
2018-12-20 19:49 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2018-12-20 21:26 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2018-12-20 22:31 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2018-12-20 22:36 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-01-07 15:01 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-01-15 4:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-01-15 22:23 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2019-01-19 20:12 ` [PATCH v3] " Bjorn Helgaas
2019-01-20 14:49 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-01-22 5:31 ` xuyandong
2019-01-22 13:53 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-01-22 18:58 ` Bjorn Helgaas
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=20181220194950.GD183878@google.com \
--to=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=xuyandong2@huawei.com \
--cc=yinghai@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).