linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>
To: Wei Yang <weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/6] Redesign SR-IOV on PowerNV
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 15:11:28 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <55DD4A80.8030102@ozlabs.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1439949704-8023-1-git-send-email-weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On 08/19/2015 12:01 PM, Wei Yang wrote:
> In original design, it tries to group VFs to enable more number of VFs in the
> system, when VF BAR is bigger than 64MB. This design has a flaw in which one
> error on a VF will interfere other VFs in the same group.
>
> This patch series change this design by using M64 BAR in Single PE mode to
> cover only one VF BAR. By doing so, it gives absolute isolation between VFs.

With or without this patchset, this fails with a horrible loop of EEHs:
rmmod mlx4_en mlx4_ib mlx4_core
modprobe mlx4_core num_vfs=4 probe_vf=4 port_type_array=2,2 debug_level=1

No guest is needed, just boot and do these commands. The EEH error is 
pointing to a broken DMA address. iommu=nobypass fixed it for 4 VFs case 
but when I try 16 VFs, none is created.

What is the correct base tree and what hardware did you use for the testing 
_exactly_?

Mine is "Ethernet controller: Mellanox Technologies MT27520 Family 
[ConnectX-3 Pro]" with 128MB BARs and that works (just double checked - can 
create all 16 VFs) with PowerKVM 3.1 so it is not a hardware issue.



>
> v4:
>     * rebase the code on top of v4.2-rc7
>     * switch back to use the dynamic version of pe_num_map and m64_map
>     * split the memory allocation and PE assignment of pe_num_map to make it
>       more easy to read
>     * check pe_num_map value before free PE.
>     * add the rename reason for pe_num_map and m64_map in change log
> v3:
>     * return -ENOSPC when a VF has non-64bit prefetchable BAR
>     * rename offset to pe_num_map and define it staticly
>     * change commit log based on comments
>     * define m64_map staticly
> v2:
>     * clean up iov bar alignment calculation
>     * change m64s to m64_bars
>     * add a field to represent M64 Single PE mode will be used
>     * change m64_wins to m64_map
>     * calculate the gate instead of hard coded
>     * dynamically allocate m64_map
>     * dynamically allocate PE#
>     * add a case to calculate iov bar alignment when M64 Single PE is used
>     * when M64 Single PE is used, compare num_vfs with M64 BAR available number
>       in system at first
>
>
>
> Wei Yang (6):
>    powerpc/powernv: don't enable SRIOV when VF BAR has non
>      64bit-prefetchable BAR
>    powerpc/powernv: simplify the calculation of iov resource alignment
>    powerpc/powernv: use one M64 BAR in Single PE mode for one VF BAR
>    powerpc/powernv: replace the hard coded boundary with gate
>    powerpc/powernv: boundary the total VF BAR size instead of the
>      individual one
>    powerpc/powernv: allocate sparse PE# when using M64 BAR in Single PE
>      mode
>
>   arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h     |    7 +-
>   arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c |  328 +++++++++++++++--------------
>   2 files changed, 175 insertions(+), 160 deletions(-)
>


-- 
Alexey

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-08-26  5:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-08-19  2:01 [PATCH V4 0/6] Redesign SR-IOV on PowerNV Wei Yang
2015-08-19  2:01 ` [PATCH V4 1/6] powerpc/powernv: don't enable SRIOV when VF BAR has non 64bit-prefetchable BAR Wei Yang
2015-10-02  8:55   ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2015-10-08  6:29     ` Wei Yang
2015-08-19  2:01 ` [PATCH V4 2/6] powerpc/powernv: simplify the calculation of iov resource alignment Wei Yang
2015-10-02  8:58   ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2015-10-08  6:39     ` Wei Yang
2015-08-19  2:01 ` [PATCH V4 3/6] powerpc/powernv: use one M64 BAR in Single PE mode for one VF BAR Wei Yang
2015-08-19  2:21   ` Gavin Shan
2015-10-02  9:29   ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2015-10-08  7:06     ` Wei Yang
2015-08-19  2:01 ` [PATCH V4 4/6] powerpc/powernv: replace the hard coded boundary with gate Wei Yang
2015-08-19  2:01 ` [PATCH V4 5/6] powerpc/powernv: boundary the total VF BAR size instead of the individual one Wei Yang
2015-10-02  9:51   ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2015-10-08  7:13     ` Wei Yang
2015-08-19  2:01 ` [PATCH V4 6/6] powerpc/powernv: allocate sparse PE# when using M64 BAR in Single PE mode Wei Yang
2015-08-19  2:21   ` Gavin Shan
2015-10-02 10:05   ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2015-10-08  7:19     ` Wei Yang
2015-08-26  5:11 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy [this message]
2015-08-26  8:06   ` [PATCH V4 0/6] Redesign SR-IOV on PowerNV Alexey Kardashevskiy
2015-10-02 10:07 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2015-10-07  2:43   ` Michael Ellerman

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=55DD4A80.8030102@ozlabs.ru \
    --to=aik@ozlabs.ru \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).