From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@daynix.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org,
Ani Sinha <anisinha@redhat.com>,
Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com>,
Sriram Yagnaraman <sriram.yagnaraman@est.tech>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>, Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>,
Klaus Jensen <its@irrelevant.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] pci: Compare function number and ARI next function number
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2023 04:57:33 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230702045605-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230702044829-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 04:55:48AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 05:46:38PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
> > On 2023/07/02 13:58, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 01, 2023 at 04:01:22PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
> > > > The function number must be lower than the next function number
> > > > advertised with ARI.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@daynix.com>
> > >
> > > I don't get this logic at all - where is the limitation coming from?
> > >
> > > All I see in the spec is:
> > > Next Function Number - With non-VFs, this field indicates the Function Number of the next higher
> > > numbered Function in the Device, or 00h if there are no higher numbered Functions. Function 0 starts
> > > this linked list of Functions.
> > > The presence of Shadow Functions does not affect this field.
> > > For VFs, this field is undefined since VFs are located using First VF Offset (see § Section 9.3.3.9 ) and VF
> > > Stride (see § Section 9.3.3.10 ).
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > To improve the enumeration performance and create a more deterministic solution, software can
> > > enumerate Functions through a linked list of Function Numbers. The next linked list element is
> > > communicated through each Function’s ARI Capability Register.
> > > i. Function 0 acts as the head of a linked list of Function Numbers. Software detects a
> > > non-Zero Next Function Number field within the ARI Capability Register as the next
> > > Function within the linked list. Software issues a configuration probe using the Bus Number
> > > captured by the Device and the Function Number derived from the ARI Capability Register
> > > to locate the next associated Function’s configuration space.
> > > ii. Function Numbers may be sparse and non-sequential in their consumption by an ARI
> > > Device.
> >
> > The statement "With non-VFs, this field indicates the Function Number of the
> > next higher numbered Function in the Device, or 00h if there are no higher
> > numbered Functions." implies the Function Number of the device should be
> > lower than the value advertised by the field (for non-VFs; this patch does
> > not check if it's VF or not.)
>
>
> Now I get it. Good point! I'd say if we want this check we should add
> it in pcie_ari_init, making that return int.
> But for now it's dead code since your are changing it to 0.
> So maybe a comment in pcie_ari_init is enough:
>
> /*
> * Note: nextfn must be the Function Number of the
> * next higher numbered Function in the Device, or 00h if there are no higher
> * numbered Functions.
> * TODO: validate this.
> */
Or add an assert, and
TODO: in case this can ever come from command line, we'll have
to replace the assert below with a runtime check.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > ---
> > > > hw/pci/pci.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/hw/pci/pci.c b/hw/pci/pci.c
> > > > index e2eb4c3b4a..568665ee42 100644
> > > > --- a/hw/pci/pci.c
> > > > +++ b/hw/pci/pci.c
> > > > @@ -2059,6 +2059,8 @@ static void pci_qdev_realize(DeviceState *qdev, Error **errp)
> > > > Error *local_err = NULL;
> > > > bool is_default_rom;
> > > > uint16_t class_id;
> > > > + uint16_t ari;
> > > > + uint16_t nextfn;
> > > > /*
> > > > * capped by systemd (see: udev-builtin-net_id.c)
> > > > @@ -2121,6 +2123,19 @@ static void pci_qdev_realize(DeviceState *qdev, Error **errp)
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > > + if (pci_is_express(pci_dev)) {
> > > > + ari = pcie_find_capability(pci_dev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_ARI);
> > > > + if (ari) {
> > > > + nextfn = (pci_get_long(pci_dev->config + ari + PCI_ARI_CAP) >> 8) & 0xff;
> > > > + if (nextfn && (pci_dev->devfn & 0xff) >= nextfn) {
> > > > + error_setg(errp, "PCI: function number %u is not lower than ARI next function number %u",
> > > > + pci_dev->devfn & 0xff, nextfn);
> > > > + pci_qdev_unrealize(DEVICE(pci_dev));
> > > > + return;
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > if (pci_dev->failover_pair_id) {
> > > > if (!pci_bus_is_express(pci_get_bus(pci_dev))) {
> > > > error_setg(errp, "failover primary device must be on "
> > > > --
> > > > 2.41.0
> > >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-02 8:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-01 7:01 [PATCH 0/4] pci: Compare function number and ARI next function number Akihiko Odaki
2023-07-01 7:01 ` [PATCH 1/4] docs: Fix next function numbers in SR/IOV documentation Akihiko Odaki
2023-07-01 14:31 ` Ani Sinha
2023-07-02 3:51 ` Akihiko Odaki
2023-07-01 7:01 ` [PATCH 2/4] hw/nvme: Fix ARI next function numbers Akihiko Odaki
2023-07-01 7:01 ` [PATCH 3/4] igb: " Akihiko Odaki
2023-07-02 5:05 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2023-07-02 8:38 ` Akihiko Odaki
2023-07-02 8:40 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2023-07-01 7:01 ` [PATCH 4/4] pci: Compare function number and ARI next function number Akihiko Odaki
2023-07-02 4:58 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2023-07-02 8:46 ` Akihiko Odaki
2023-07-02 8:55 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2023-07-02 8:57 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2023-07-11 7:10 ` Ani Sinha
2023-07-11 8:33 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2023-07-02 5:10 ` [PATCH 0/4] " Michael S. Tsirkin
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=20230702045605-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org \
--to=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=akihiko.odaki@daynix.com \
--cc=anisinha@redhat.com \
--cc=its@irrelevant.dk \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com \
--cc=qemu-block@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=sriram.yagnaraman@est.tech \
/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).