public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Christian König" <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com>
To: "Michał Winiarski" <michal.winiarski@intel.com>
Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	"Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>,
	"Rodrigo Vivi" <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
	"Michal Wajdeczko" <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>,
	"Lucas De Marchi" <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>,
	"Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>,
	"Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
	"Maxime Ripard" <mripard@kernel.org>,
	"Thomas Zimmermann" <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
	"David Airlie" <airlied@gmail.com>,
	"Simona Vetter" <simona@ffwll.ch>,
	"Matt Roper" <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] PCI: Allow extending VF BAR within original resource boundary
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 11:23:03 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <82416d60-36ec-4aac-b36c-83073b8354bd@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8fa25483-d6e2-4614-aa2a-c41af0529e5c@amd.com>

Re-sending this as text from my private mail account since the AMD 
servers now seem to convert everything to HTML ^^.

Christian.

Am 11.10.24 um 10:57 schrieb Christian König:
> Am 10.10.24 um 10:59 schrieb Michał Winiarski:
>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 12:07:34PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
>>> Am 20.09.24 um 00:35 schrieb Michał Winiarski:
>>>> [SNIP]
>>>> @@ -487,6 +567,11 @@ static ssize_t sriov_numvfs_store(struct device *dev,
>>>>    		goto exit;
>>>>    	}
>>>> +	for (i = 0; i < PCI_SRIOV_NUM_BARS; i++) {
>>>> +		if (pdev->sriov->rebar_extend[i])
>>>> +			pci_iov_resource_do_extend(pdev, i + PCI_IOV_RESOURCES, num_vfs);
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>> That sounds like a really bad idea to me.
>>>
>>> Basically the suggestion is here that the PCI subsystem should silently
>>> extend and shrink the VF BARs when the number of VFs change?
>> Why do you think it's a bad idea? Everything is under PCI subsystem
>> control and the driver in charge has to explicitly opt-in to this
>> behavior on a per-BAR basis.
>
> And exactly that's a bad idea. The PCI subsystem shouldn't control 
> this, the driver should.
>
> At least for some devices we have tons of interactions with ACPI and 
> EFI. Only the driver does know for example when platform drivers which 
> might be in the way for a resize have been unloaded.
>
> From the past experience BAR resize should only be triggered by the 
> driver and never from the PCI subsystem while scanning the bus or 
> probing devices.
>
>>> Bjorn has the last word on that but I would say that instead the driver
>>> owning the PCIe device as hypervisor should resize the VF BARs to a desired
>>> size and that in turn restricts the number of VFs you can enable.
>> Then the PCI subsystem would silently change the driver_max_VFs (or new
>> variable, as driver_max_VFs is under PF control, so it's either new var
>> or checking VF BAR size in pci_sriov_set_totalvfs).
>
> Nope, the PCI subsystem should not magically adjust anything.
>
> What should happen instead is that the driver would call 
> pci_enable_sriov() with the number of virtual functions to enable and 
> the PCI subsystem then validates that number and return -EINVAL or 
> -ENOSPC if it won't work.
>
>> It also means that we have to do the maths to calculate the new VF limit
>> in both PCI subsystem and the caller.
>
> Well the point is that those calculations are different.
>
> What the subsystem does is to validate if with the number of requested 
> virtual functions the necessary resources will fit into the allocate 
> space.
>
> What the driver does previously is to either change the allocate space 
> or calculate the other way around and determine the maximum virtual 
> functions from the space available.
>
>> We can go this route as well - I just think it's cleaner to keep this
>> all under PCI subsystem control.
>
> I think that would be much cleaner, especially the PCI subsystem 
> shouldn't adjust any values given from the driver or even more general 
> overrule decisions the driver made.
>
> Instead proper error codes should be returned if some values don't 
> make sense or the subsystem isn't able to move around BARs currently 
> in use etc...
>
> Regards,
> Christian.
>
>> I'll keep the current behavior in v3, but I'm open to changing it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Michał
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Christian.
>>>
>>>>    	ret = pdev->driver->sriov_configure(pdev, num_vfs);
>>>>    	if (ret < 0)
>>>>    		goto exit;
>>>> @@ -881,8 +966,13 @@ static int sriov_init(struct pci_dev *dev, int pos)
>>>>    static void sriov_release(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>>    {
>>>> +	int i;
>>>> +
>>>>    	BUG_ON(dev->sriov->num_VFs);
>>>> +	for (i = 0; i < PCI_SRIOV_NUM_BARS; i++)
>>>> +		pci_iov_resource_do_restore(dev, i + PCI_IOV_RESOURCES);
>>>> +
>>>>    	if (dev != dev->sriov->dev)
>>>>    		pci_dev_put(dev->sriov->dev);
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.h b/drivers/pci/pci.h
>>>> index e763b3fd4c7a2..47ed2633232aa 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/pci.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.h
>>>> @@ -385,6 +385,7 @@ struct pci_sriov {
>>>>    	u16		subsystem_vendor; /* VF subsystem vendor */
>>>>    	u16		subsystem_device; /* VF subsystem device */
>>>>    	resource_size_t	barsz[PCI_SRIOV_NUM_BARS];	/* VF BAR size */
>>>> +	bool		rebar_extend[PCI_SRIOV_NUM_BARS];	/* Resize VF BAR */
>>>>    	bool		drivers_autoprobe; /* Auto probing of VFs by driver */
>>>>    };
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/pci.h b/include/linux/pci.h
>>>> index 4cf89a4b4cbcf..c007119da7b3d 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/pci.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/pci.h
>>>> @@ -2364,6 +2364,7 @@ int pci_sriov_set_totalvfs(struct pci_dev *dev, u16 numvfs);
>>>>    int pci_sriov_get_totalvfs(struct pci_dev *dev);
>>>>    int pci_sriov_configure_simple(struct pci_dev *dev, int nr_virtfn);
>>>>    resource_size_t pci_iov_resource_size(struct pci_dev *dev, int resno);
>>>> +int pci_iov_resource_extend(struct pci_dev *dev, int resno, bool enable);
>>>>    void pci_vf_drivers_autoprobe(struct pci_dev *dev, bool probe);
>>>>    /* Arch may override these (weak) */
>>>> @@ -2416,6 +2417,8 @@ static inline int pci_sriov_get_totalvfs(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>>    #define pci_sriov_configure_simple	NULL
>>>>    static inline resource_size_t pci_iov_resource_size(struct pci_dev *dev, int resno)
>>>>    { return 0; }
>>>> +static inline void pci_iov_resource_extend(struct pci_dev *dev, int resno, bool enable)
>>>> +{ return -ENODEV; }
>>>>    static inline void pci_vf_drivers_autoprobe(struct pci_dev *dev, bool probe) { }
>>>>    #endif
>


  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-10-11  9:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-09-19 22:35 [PATCH v2 0/3] PCI: VF resizable BAR Michał Winiarski
2024-09-19 22:35 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] PCI: Add support for VF Resizable Bar extended cap Michał Winiarski
2024-09-20  8:36   ` kernel test robot
2024-09-20  9:57   ` Christian König
2024-10-10  8:46     ` Michał Winiarski
2024-09-19 22:35 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] PCI: Allow extending VF BAR within original resource boundary Michał Winiarski
2024-09-20 10:07   ` Christian König
2024-10-10  8:59     ` Michał Winiarski
     [not found]       ` <8fa25483-d6e2-4614-aa2a-c41af0529e5c@amd.com>
2024-10-11  9:23         ` Christian König [this message]
2024-09-20 11:09   ` kernel test robot
2024-09-20 11:19   ` kernel test robot
2024-09-20 11:30   ` Ilpo Järvinen
2024-10-10  8:43     ` Michał Winiarski
2024-09-19 22:35 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] drm/xe/pf: Extend the VF LMEM BAR Michał Winiarski

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=82416d60-36ec-4aac-b36c-83073b8354bd@gmail.com \
    --to=ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com \
    --cc=airlied@gmail.com \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=kw@linux.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
    --cc=maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=matthew.d.roper@intel.com \
    --cc=michal.wajdeczko@intel.com \
    --cc=michal.winiarski@intel.com \
    --cc=mripard@kernel.org \
    --cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
    --cc=simona@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=tzimmermann@suse.de \
    /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