From: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
Cc: joro@8bytes.org, will@kernel.org, jsnitsel@redhat.com,
pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de, Jon.Grimm@amd.com,
Tj <ml.linux@elloe.vision>,
Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru>,
David Coe <david.coe@live.co.uk>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] iommu/amd: Remove performance counter pre-initialization test
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 11:10:29 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4f64e9d4-dfc5-3dec-32c9-06bfbfeafd6b@linuxfoundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6d53ded8-9ab8-7205-f17e-d0c315b770bd@linuxfoundation.org>
On 4/9/21 10:37 AM, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 4/9/21 2:58 AM, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>> In early AMD desktop/mobile platforms (during 2013), when the IOMMU
>> Performance Counter (PMC) support was first introduced in
>> commit 30861ddc9cca ("perf/x86/amd: Add IOMMU Performance Counter
>> resource management"), there was a HW bug where the counters could not
>> be accessed. The result was reading of the counter always return zero.
>>
>> At the time, the suggested workaround was to add a test logic prior
>> to initializing the PMC feature to check if the counters can be
>> programmed
>> and read back the same value. This has been working fine until the more
>> recent desktop/mobile platforms start enabling power gating for the PMC,
>> which prevents access to the counters. This results in the PMC support
>> being disabled unnecesarily.
>
> unnecessarily
>
>>
>> Unfortunatly, there is no documentation of since which generation
>
> Unfortunately,
>
> Rephrase suggestion:
> Unfortunately, it is unclear when the PMC HW bug fixed.
>
>> of hardware the original PMC HW bug was fixed. Although, it was fixed
>> soon after the first introduction of the PMC. Base on this, we assume
>
> Based
>
>> that the buggy platforms are less likely to be in used, and it should
>
> in use
>
>> be relatively safe to remove this legacy logic.
>
>>
>> Link:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/alpine.LNX.3.20.13.2006030935570.3181@monopod.intra.ispras.ru/
>>
>> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=201753
>> Cc: Tj (Elloe Linux) <ml.linux@elloe.vision>
>> Cc: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
>> Cc: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru>
>> Cc: David Coe <david.coe@live.co.uk>
>> Cc: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>
>> Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/iommu/amd/init.c | 24 +-----------------------
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 23 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/amd/init.c b/drivers/iommu/amd/init.c
>> index 648cdfd03074..247cdda5d683 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/amd/init.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/amd/init.c
>> @@ -1714,33 +1714,16 @@ static int __init init_iommu_all(struct
>> acpi_table_header *table)
>> return 0;
>> }
>> -static int iommu_pc_get_set_reg(struct amd_iommu *iommu, u8 bank, u8
>> cntr,
>> - u8 fxn, u64 *value, bool is_write);
>> -
>> static void init_iommu_perf_ctr(struct amd_iommu *iommu)
>> {
>> + u64 val;
>> struct pci_dev *pdev = iommu->dev;
>> - u64 val = 0xabcd, val2 = 0, save_reg = 0;
Why not leave this u64 val here? Having the pdev assignment as the
first line makes it easier to read/follow.
>> if (!iommu_feature(iommu, FEATURE_PC))
>> return;
>> amd_iommu_pc_present = true;
>> - /* save the value to restore, if writable */
>> - if (iommu_pc_get_set_reg(iommu, 0, 0, 0, &save_reg, false))
>> - goto pc_false;
>> -
>> - /* Check if the performance counters can be written to */
>> - if ((iommu_pc_get_set_reg(iommu, 0, 0, 0, &val, true)) ||
>> - (iommu_pc_get_set_reg(iommu, 0, 0, 0, &val2, false)) ||
>> - (val != val2))
Aha - this is going away anyway. Please ignore my comment on 1/2
about parenthesis around (val != val2) being unnecessary.
>> - goto pc_false;
>> -
>> - /* restore */
>> - if (iommu_pc_get_set_reg(iommu, 0, 0, 0, &save_reg, true))
>> - goto pc_false;
>> -
>> pci_info(pdev, "IOMMU performance counters supported\n");
>> val = readl(iommu->mmio_base + MMIO_CNTR_CONF_OFFSET);
>> @@ -1748,11 +1731,6 @@ static void init_iommu_perf_ctr(struct
>> amd_iommu *iommu)
>> iommu->max_counters = (u8) ((val >> 7) & 0xf);
>> return;
>> -
>> -pc_false:
>> - pci_err(pdev, "Unable to read/write to IOMMU perf counter.\n");
>> - amd_iommu_pc_present = false;
>> - return;
>> }
>> static ssize_t amd_iommu_show_cap(struct device *dev,
>>
>
thanks,
-- Shuah
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-09 17:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-09 8:58 [PATCH 0/2] iommu/amd: Revert and remove failing PMC test Suravee Suthikulpanit
2021-04-09 8:58 ` [PATCH 1/2] Revert "iommu/amd: Fix performance counter initialization" Suravee Suthikulpanit
2021-04-09 17:06 ` Shuah Khan
2021-04-13 13:36 ` Suthikulpanit, Suravee
2021-04-09 8:58 ` [PATCH 2/2] iommu/amd: Remove performance counter pre-initialization test Suravee Suthikulpanit
2021-04-09 16:37 ` Shuah Khan
2021-04-09 17:10 ` Shuah Khan [this message]
2021-04-09 20:00 ` Shuah Khan
2021-04-09 20:19 ` Shuah Khan
2021-04-09 20:11 ` David Coe
2021-04-10 8:17 ` David Coe
2021-04-10 10:03 ` David Coe
2021-04-13 13:51 ` Suthikulpanit, Suravee
2021-04-14 15:33 ` David Coe
2021-04-15 9:28 ` Suthikulpanit, Suravee
2021-04-15 14:39 ` David Coe
2021-04-15 16:20 ` David Coe
2021-04-18 19:16 ` David Coe
2021-04-14 22:18 ` David Coe
2021-04-20 8:38 ` Suthikulpanit, Suravee
2021-04-20 10:33 ` Alexander Monakov
2021-04-13 9:38 ` David Coe
2021-04-15 13:41 ` [PATCH 0/2] iommu/amd: Revert and remove failing PMC test Joerg Roedel
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=4f64e9d4-dfc5-3dec-32c9-06bfbfeafd6b@linuxfoundation.org \
--to=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=Jon.Grimm@amd.com \
--cc=amonakov@ispras.ru \
--cc=david.coe@live.co.uk \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=jsnitsel@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ml.linux@elloe.vision \
--cc=pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de \
--cc=suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com \
--cc=will@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