linux-pci.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Zhou Wang <wangzhou1@hisilicon.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] PCI: Fix prefetchable range broken in pci_bridge_check_ranges
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 18:40:07 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <59DB5207.7070309@hisilicon.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171002041700.GA3834@localhost.localdomain>

On 2017/10/2 12:17, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 03:24:42PM +0800, Zhou Wang wrote:
>>                                         -> pci_write_config_dword(bridge, PCI_PREF_BASE_UPPER32, 0xffffffff)
>>
>> This will change the prefetch range of 00:00.0 in a time slot, so traffic of
>> 01:00.0 or 01:00.1 may be broken.
>>
>> In fact, we can get if one bridge supports 64bit range by the bottom 4bits of
>> prefetchable memory base/limit. Honestly speaking, I don't know why 1f82de10d6b1
>> ("PCI/86: don't assume prefetchable ranges are 64bit") has added the double
>> check code.
> 
> some chip even that flags say that 64bit is support from that bits, but its upper 32 bits
> actually can not be changed.
> 
>>
>> So Can we remove the double checking of prefetchable range to avoid this problem?
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhou Wang <wangzhou1@hisilicon.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/pci/setup-bus.c | 14 --------------
>>  1 file changed, 14 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
>> index 958da7d..23010a9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
>> @@ -778,20 +778,6 @@ static void pci_bridge_check_ranges(struct pci_bus *bus)
>>  			b_res[2].flags |= PCI_PREF_RANGE_TYPE_64;
>>  		}
>>  	}
>> -
>> -	/* double check if bridge does support 64 bit pref */
>> -	if (b_res[2].flags & IORESOURCE_MEM_64) {
>> -		u32 mem_base_hi, tmp;
>> -		pci_read_config_dword(bridge, PCI_PREF_BASE_UPPER32,
>> -					 &mem_base_hi);
>> -		pci_write_config_dword(bridge, PCI_PREF_BASE_UPPER32,
>> -					       0xffffffff);
>> -		pci_read_config_dword(bridge, PCI_PREF_BASE_UPPER32, &tmp);
>> -		if (!tmp)
>> -			b_res[2].flags &= ~IORESOURCE_MEM_64;
>> -		pci_write_config_dword(bridge, PCI_PREF_BASE_UPPER32,
>> -				       mem_base_hi);
>> -	}
>>  }
>>  
>>  /* Helper function for sizing routines: find first available
> 
> Maybe we can try this: only touch upper 32bits after we touched low 32bits ?
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
> index 958da7db9033..2ac4d20e5c11 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
> @@ -744,6 +744,7 @@ static void pci_bridge_check_ranges(struct pci_bus *bus)
>  	u32 pmem;
>  	struct pci_dev *bridge = bus->self;
>  	struct resource *b_res;
> +	int pref_memory_base_touched = 0;
>  
>  	b_res = &bridge->resource[PCI_BRIDGE_RESOURCES];
>  	b_res[1].flags |= IORESOURCE_MEM;
> @@ -769,6 +770,7 @@ static void pci_bridge_check_ranges(struct pci_bus *bus)
>  					       0xffe0fff0);
>  		pci_read_config_dword(bridge, PCI_PREF_MEMORY_BASE, &pmem);
>  		pci_write_config_dword(bridge, PCI_PREF_MEMORY_BASE, 0x0);
> +		pref_memory_base_touched = 1;
>  	}
>  	if (pmem) {
>  		b_res[2].flags |= IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_PREFETCH;
> @@ -780,7 +782,7 @@ static void pci_bridge_check_ranges(struct pci_bus *bus)
>  	}
>  
>  	/* double check if bridge does support 64 bit pref */
> -	if (b_res[2].flags & IORESOURCE_MEM_64) {
> +	if (pref_memory_base_touched && b_res[2].flags & IORESOURCE_MEM_64) {
>  		u32 mem_base_hi, tmp;
>  		pci_read_config_dword(bridge, PCI_PREF_BASE_UPPER32,
>  					 &mem_base_hi);
>

I think this workaround can solve the problem I mentioned in commit message:

if we have below PCIe topology:

-[0000:00]-+-00.0-[01-02]--+-00.0  Device 8086:10fb
           |               \-00.1  Device 8086:10fb
           \-08.0-[03]----00.0  Device 8086:0953

When rescan 00:08.0, it will change the prefetch range of 00:00.0 in a time slot,
so traffic of 01:00.0 or 01:00.1 may be broken.

As when it runs pci_bridge_check_ranges for bus 1, PCI_PREF_MEMORY_BASE will not be
0, PCI_PREF_BASE_UPPER32 will not be double checked.

Thanks,
Zhou

> 
> 
> 
> .
> 

      parent reply	other threads:[~2017-10-09 10:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-09-23  7:24 [RFC PATCH] PCI: Fix prefetchable range broken in pci_bridge_check_ranges Zhou Wang
2017-09-30  1:15 ` Zhou Wang
2017-10-02  4:17 ` Yinghai Lu
2017-10-02 20:38   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2017-10-10  8:16     ` Zhou Wang
2017-10-17  7:00       ` Yinghai Lu
2017-10-09 10:40   ` Zhou Wang [this message]

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=59DB5207.7070309@hisilicon.com \
    --to=wangzhou1@hisilicon.com \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --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).