From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@kernel.org>
To: "Philipp Stanner" <pstanner@redhat.com>,
"Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@redhat.com>,
"Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
"Eric Auger" <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
"Kent Overstreet" <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>,
"Niklas Schnelle" <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>,
"Neil Brown" <neilb@suse.de>, "John Sanpe" <sanpeqf@gmail.com>,
"Dave Jiang" <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
"Yury Norov" <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
"Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
"Masami Hiramatsu" <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
"David Gow" <davidgow@google.com>,
"Herbert Xu" <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"wuqiang.matt" <wuqiang.matt@bytedance.com>,
"Jason Baron" <jbaron@akamai.com>,
"Ben Dooks" <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] lib/iomap.c: improve comment about pci anomaly
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 18:37:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8c45a36e-60f9-49ee-aa77-aaba8ac5e62f@app.fastmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b13191e7a5ad63de23adb8ec3f8a3699a0dd236e.camel@redhat.com>
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, at 11:16, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-11-24 at 20:08 +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>>
>> lib/pci_iomap.c contains another definition of pci_iounmap() which is
>> guarded by ARCH_WANTS_GENERIC_PCI_IOUNMAP to prevent multiple
>> definitions
>> in case either GENERIC_IOMAP is set or the architecture already
>> defined
>> pci_iounmap().
>
> To clarify that, here's the relevant excerpt from include/asm-
> generic/io.h:
>
> #ifndef CONFIG_GENERIC_IOMAP
> #ifndef pci_iounmap
> #define ARCH_WANTS_GENERIC_PCI_IOUNMAP
> #endif
> #endif
Right, this was added fairly recently in an effort to
unify the architectures that can share a simple implementation
based on the way that modern PCI host bridges on non-x86
work.
>> What's the purpose of not having set ARCH_HAS_GENERIC_IOPORT_MAP
>> producing
>> an empty definition of pci_iounmap() though [1]?
>>
>> And more generally, is there any other (subtle) logic behind this?
>
> That's indeed also very hard to understand for me, because you'd expect
> that if pci_iomap() exists (and does something), pci_iounmap() should
> also exist and, of course, unmapp the memory again.
Right, I think that was a leak introduced in 316e8d79a095
("pci_iounmap'2: Electric Boogaloo: try to make sense of
it all") that should be fixed like
--- a/lib/pci_iomap.c
+++ b/lib/pci_iomap.c
@@ -170,8 +170,8 @@ void pci_iounmap(struct pci_dev *dev, void __iomem *p)
if (addr >= start && addr < start + IO_SPACE_LIMIT)
return;
- iounmap(p);
#endif
+ iounmap(p);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_iounmap);
i.e. architectures without port I/O just call iounmap() but those
that support the normal ioport_map() have to skip iounmap()
for ports in that special PIO range.
> Regarding the last point, a number of architectures define their own
> ioport_map():
>
> arch/alpha/kernel/io.c, line 684 (as a function)
> arch/arc/include/asm/io.h, line 27 (as a function)
> arch/arm/mm/iomap.c, line 19 (as a function)
> arch/m68k/include/asm/kmap.h, line 60 (as a function)
> arch/parisc/lib/iomap.c, line 504 (as a function)
> arch/powerpc/kernel/iomap.c, line 14 (as a function)
> arch/s390/include/asm/io.h, line 38 (as a function)
> arch/sh/kernel/ioport.c, line 24 (as a function)
> arch/sparc/lib/iomap.c, line 10 (as a function)
>
> I grepped through those archs and as I see it, none of those specify an
> empty pci_iomap() that could be a counterpart to the potentially empty
> pci_iounmap() in lib/pci_iomap.c
I'm trying to unwind what you are saying here, and there are
two separate issues:
- an empty unmap() function still makes sense if the map() function
just returns a usable pointer like the asm-generic version
of ioport_map(), it only has to be non-empty if the map function
allocates a resource that has to be freed later, like the
page table entries for most ioremap() implementations.
- pci_iounmap() in lib/pci_iomap.c being empty is probably
just a bug
>> From what I can tell looking at the header, I think we can
>> just remove the "#elif defined(CONFIG_GENERIC_PCI_IOMAP)"
>> bit entirely, as it no longer serves the purpose it originally
>> had.
>
> So it seems that the empty unmap-function in pci_iomap.c is the left-
> over counterpart of those mapping functions always returning NULL.
no
> @Arnd:
> Your code draft
>
> void pci_iounmap(struct pci_dev *dev, void __iomem * addr)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_HAS_IOPORT
> if (iomem_is_ioport(addr)) {
> ioport_unmap(addr);
> return;
> }
> #endif
> iounmap(addr)
> }
>
> seems to agree with that: There will never be the need for an empty
> function that does nothing. Correct?
Agreed, while arch/sparc/ currently has an empty pci_iounmap(),
that is just because the normal iounmap() on that architecture
is also empty, given that all MMIO memory is always mapped.
>> > {
>> > #ifdef CONFIG_HAS_IOPORT
>> > if (iomem_is_ioport(addr)) {
>> > ioport_unmap(addr);
>> > return;
>> > }
>> > #endif
>> > iounmap(addr)
>> > }
>> >
>> > and then define iomem_is_ioport() in lib/iomap.c for x86,
>> > while defining it in asm-generic/io.h for the rest,
>> > with an override in asm/io.h for those architectures
>> > that need a custom inb().
>>
>> So, that would be similar to IO_COND(), right? What would we need
>> inb() for in this context?
In general, any architecture that has a custom inb() also
needs a custom ioport_map() and iomem_is_ioport() in this
scheme, while the "normal" architectures like arm/arm64 and
riscv should be able to just use the asm-generic version.
IO_COND() is really specific to those architectures that
rely on the rather misnamed GENERIC_IOMAP for implementing
ioport_map().
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-29 17:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-20 21:59 [PATCH 0/4] Regather scattered PCI-Code Philipp Stanner
2023-11-20 21:59 ` [PATCH 1/4] lib: move pci_iomap.c to drivers/pci/ Philipp Stanner
2023-11-21 4:20 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-21 10:44 ` Philipp Stanner
2023-11-21 6:48 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-21 7:22 ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-11-21 7:20 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-21 7:45 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-21 7:58 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-21 8:46 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-21 10:44 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-21 10:44 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-21 13:14 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-21 14:38 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-21 15:04 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-21 15:40 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-21 15:56 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-22 1:51 ` Liu, Yujie
2023-11-22 8:15 ` Philipp Stanner
2023-11-23 6:42 ` Yujie Liu
2023-11-22 16:28 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-20 21:59 ` [PATCH 2/4] lib: move pci-specific devres code " Philipp Stanner
2023-11-21 7:29 ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-11-21 8:00 ` Philipp Stanner
2023-11-21 10:10 ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-11-20 21:59 ` [PATCH 3/4] pci: move devres code from pci.c to devres.c Philipp Stanner
2023-11-21 10:17 ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-11-21 10:36 ` Philipp Stanner
2023-11-20 21:59 ` [PATCH 4/4] lib/iomap.c: improve comment about pci anomaly Philipp Stanner
2023-11-21 10:03 ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-11-21 14:38 ` Philipp Stanner
2023-11-21 14:41 ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-11-24 19:08 ` Danilo Krummrich
2023-11-29 10:16 ` Philipp Stanner
2023-11-29 17:37 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2023-11-29 12:40 ` Philipp Stanner
2023-11-29 16:52 ` Arnd Bergmann
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=8c45a36e-60f9-49ee-aa77-aaba8ac5e62f@app.fastmail.com \
--to=arnd@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=dakr@redhat.com \
--cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
--cc=davidgow@google.com \
--cc=eric.auger@redhat.com \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=jbaron@akamai.com \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kent.overstreet@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=pstanner@redhat.com \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=sanpeqf@gmail.com \
--cc=schnelle@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=wuqiang.matt@bytedance.com \
--cc=yury.norov@gmail.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