From: Mathias Krause <minipli@grsecurity.net>
To: Justin Tee <justintee8345@gmail.com>
Cc: Justin Tee <justin.tee@broadcom.com>,
Paul Ely <paul.ely@broadcom.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, James Smart <jsmart2021@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: lpfc: Properly set WC for DPP mapping
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2026 09:03:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f231ed5f-6c0c-4b20-8bf5-cafbaca26255@grsecurity.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABPRKS8yunk2P9vH0qr0Z-FS3Og17btQDa6dxYDs_2G-1QXkjg@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6516 bytes --]
On 12.02.26 01:01, Justin Tee wrote:
>> You're hard-coding PCI_64BIT_BAR4 here which *feels* inappropriate if we
>> went all the way with wrappers like lpfc_dual_chute_pci_bar_addr() and
>> making sure to be using the BAR the device told us. In fact, that was
>> the reason, I did it like this, assuming it might be something else than
>> WQ_PCI_BAR_4_AND_5, e.g. a BAR shared with the doorbell registers. If
>> that cannot happen, what's the reason to have 'dpp_offset'?
>
> Totally right, we actually only use WQ_PCI_BAR_4_AND_5 for dpp.
> Hence, the hardcode to PCI_64BIT_BAR4. Please see revised patch
> below.
But this would still be inconsistent with the previous mapping of the
DPP region (wq->dpp_regaddr) which uses 'dpp_barset' as gathered from
the hardware. This, at least, opens the window for inconsistencies
if/when a future devices returns something else than WQ_PCI_BAR_4_AND_5.
>
> The reason for dpp_offset is to be able to store the dpp register
> address for each individual WQ created. We can just add the
> dpp_offset from the response of our mailbox command on top of the base
> dpp register address.
Ahh, that makes totally sense. Thanks for the explanation.
>
>> Also, what's the reason to do the offset calculation in the caller?
>> ioremap_wc() can handle non-page-aligned / offset addresses just fine.
>> That's why my version passed dpp_offset to lpfc_dpp_wc_map() and made it
>> adjust the to-be-mapped address before calling ioremap_wc(); to only
>> remap what's needed.
>> Same for the size: I just capped it to what's needed by its only user in
>> lpfc_sli4_wq_put(). Again, ioremap_wc() will do "The Right Thing(TM)"
>> and map all required pages.
>
> Sure, but the DPP apertures are contiguous anyways so what’s the harm
> in a single ioremap_wc call and then have each wq->dpp_regaddr point
> to its corresponding dpp register address, it seemed simpler?
Yeah, you're right. I missed the point that there are multiple queues,
each with a different offest into the DPP region.
>
>> Out of curiosity, the I/O stalls are no longer happening with this version?
> Yes, I/O stalls are no longer happening with that version and the
> revised patch below.
Perfect!
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
> index a116a16c4a6f..b5e53c7d33e7 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
> @@ -12039,6 +12039,8 @@ lpfc_sli4_pci_mem_unset(struct lpfc_hba *phba)
> iounmap(phba->sli4_hba.conf_regs_memmap_p);
> if (phba->sli4_hba.dpp_regs_memmap_p)
> iounmap(phba->sli4_hba.dpp_regs_memmap_p);
> + if (phba->sli4_hba.dpp_regs_memmap_wc_p)
> + iounmap(phba->sli4_hba.dpp_regs_memmap_wc_p);
> break;
> case LPFC_SLI_INTF_IF_TYPE_1:
> break;
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c
> index 734af3d039f8..f4bff6ee3a0b 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c
> @@ -15981,6 +15981,23 @@ lpfc_dual_chute_pci_bar_map(struct lpfc_hba
> *phba, uint16_t pci_barset)
> return NULL;
> }
>
> +static __maybe_unused void __iomem *
> +lpfc_dpp_wc_map(struct lpfc_hba *phba)
> +{
> + if (!phba->sli4_hba.dpp_regs_memmap_wc_p) {
> + void __iomem *dpp_map;
> +
> + dpp_map = ioremap_wc(phba->pci_bar2_map,
> + pci_resource_len(phba->pcidev,
> + PCI_64BIT_BAR4));
> +
> + if (dpp_map)
> + phba->sli4_hba.dpp_regs_memmap_wc_p = dpp_map;
> + }
> +
> + return phba->sli4_hba.dpp_regs_memmap_wc_p;
> +}
To address my propably just paranoia concerns, can you pass 'dpp_barset'
as an argument to lpfc_dpp_wc_map() and add the following at the begin
of the function?:
/* DPP region is supposed to cover 64-bit BAR2 */
if (WARN_ON(dpp_barset != WQ_PCI_BAR_4_AND_5))
return NULL;
That would make me more comfortable with hardcoding BAR.
> +
> /**
> * lpfc_modify_hba_eq_delay - Modify Delay Multiplier on EQs
> * @phba: HBA structure that EQs are on.
> @@ -16944,9 +16961,6 @@ lpfc_wq_create(struct lpfc_hba *phba, struct
> lpfc_queue *wq,
> uint8_t dpp_barset;
> uint32_t dpp_offset;
> uint8_t wq_create_version;
> -#ifdef CONFIG_X86
> - unsigned long pg_addr;
> -#endif
>
> /* sanity check on queue memory */
> if (!wq || !cq)
> @@ -17132,14 +17146,15 @@ lpfc_wq_create(struct lpfc_hba *phba, struct
> lpfc_queue *wq,
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86
> /* Enable combined writes for DPP aperture */
> - pg_addr = (unsigned long)(wq->dpp_regaddr) & PAGE_MASK;
> - rc = set_memory_wc(pg_addr, 1);
> - if (rc) {
> + bar_memmap_p = lpfc_dpp_wc_map(phba);
> + if (!bar_memmap_p) {
> lpfc_printf_log(phba, KERN_ERR, LOG_INIT,
> "3272 Cannot setup Combined "
> "Write on WQ[%d] - disable DPP\n",
> wq->queue_id);
> phba->cfg_enable_dpp = 0;
> + } else {
> + wq->dpp_regaddr = bar_memmap_p + dpp_offset;
> }
> #else
> phba->cfg_enable_dpp = 0;
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli4.h b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli4.h
> index ee58383492b2..b6d90604bb61 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli4.h
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli4.h
> @@ -785,6 +785,9 @@ struct lpfc_sli4_hba {
> void __iomem *dpp_regs_memmap_p; /* Kernel memory mapped address for
> * dpp registers
> */
> + void __iomem *dpp_regs_memmap_wc_p;/* Kernel memory mapped address for
> + * dpp registers with write combining
> + */
> union {
> struct {
> /* IF Type 0, BAR 0 PCI cfg space reg mem map */
Thanks,
Mathias
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 665 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-12 8:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-13 22:27 [PATCH] scsi: lpfc: Properly set WC for DPP mapping Mathias Krause
2026-01-16 17:46 ` Justin Tee
2026-01-16 22:33 ` Justin Tee
2026-01-19 16:45 ` Mathias Krause
2026-01-21 0:44 ` Justin Tee
2026-02-09 18:47 ` Justin Tee
2026-02-11 14:34 ` Mathias Krause
2026-02-12 0:01 ` Justin Tee
2026-02-12 8:03 ` Mathias Krause [this message]
2026-02-12 18:43 ` Justin Tee
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=f231ed5f-6c0c-4b20-8bf5-cafbaca26255@grsecurity.net \
--to=minipli@grsecurity.net \
--cc=jsmart2021@gmail.com \
--cc=justin.tee@broadcom.com \
--cc=justintee8345@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul.ely@broadcom.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