From: Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@daynix.com>
To: "Cédric Le Goater" <clg@redhat.com>,
"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
"Marcel Apfelbaum" <marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com>,
"Alex Williamson" <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>,
"Eduardo Habkost" <eduardo@habkost.net>,
"Sriram Yagnaraman" <sriram.yagnaraman@ericsson.com>,
"Jason Wang" <jasowang@redhat.com>,
"Keith Busch" <kbusch@kernel.org>,
"Klaus Jensen" <its@irrelevant.dk>,
"Markus Armbruster" <armbru@redhat.com>,
"Matthew Rosato" <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>,
"Eric Farman" <farman@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-9.2 v15 04/11] s390x/pci: Check for multifunction after device realization
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 19:58:15 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <eaebda7d-c61e-4ed8-a6b9-98e5f48f26ff@daynix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2b5d2fce-8a1e-4f50-a5d2-0c4aaa2880af@redhat.com>
On 2024/09/11 18:38, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> +Matthew +Eric
>
> Side note for the maintainers :
>
> Before this change, the igb device, which is multifunction, was working
> fine under Linux.
>
> Was there a fix in Linux since :
>
> 57da367b9ec4 ("s390x/pci: forbid multifunction pci device")
> 6069bcdeacee ("s390x/pci: Move some hotplug checks to the pre_plug
> handler")
>
> ?
>
> s390 PCI devices do not have extended capabilities, so the igb device
> does not expose the SRIOV capability and only the PF is accessible but
> it doesn't seem to be an issue. (Btw, CONFIG_PCI_IOV is set to y in the
> default Linux config which is unexpected)
Doesn't s390x really see extended capabilities? hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.c
has a call pci_config_size() and pci_host_config_write_common(), which
means it is exposing the whole PCI Express configuration space. Why
can't s390x use extended capabilities then?
The best option for fix would be to replace the SR-IOV implementation
with stub if s390x cannot use the SR-IOV capability. However I still
need to know at what level I should change the implementation (e.g., is
it fine to remove the entire capability, or should I keep the capability
while writes to its registers no-op?)
Regards,
Akihiko Odaki
>
> Thanks,
>
> C.
>
>
>
> On 8/23/24 07:00, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
>> The SR-IOV PFs set the multifunction bits during device realization so
>> check them after that. This forbids adding SR-IOV devices to s390x.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@daynix.com>
>> ---
>> hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c | 14 ++++++--------
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c b/hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c
>> index 3e57d5faca18..00b2c1f6157b 100644
>> --- a/hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c
>> +++ b/hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c
>> @@ -971,14 +971,7 @@ static void s390_pcihost_pre_plug(HotplugHandler
>> *hotplug_dev, DeviceState *dev,
>> "this device");
>> }
>> - if (object_dynamic_cast(OBJECT(dev), TYPE_PCI_DEVICE)) {
>> - PCIDevice *pdev = PCI_DEVICE(dev);
>> -
>> - if (pdev->cap_present & QEMU_PCI_CAP_MULTIFUNCTION) {
>> - error_setg(errp, "multifunction not supported in s390");
>> - return;
>> - }
>> - } else if (object_dynamic_cast(OBJECT(dev), TYPE_S390_PCI_DEVICE)) {
>> + if (object_dynamic_cast(OBJECT(dev), TYPE_S390_PCI_DEVICE)) {
>> S390PCIBusDevice *pbdev = S390_PCI_DEVICE(dev);
>> if (!s390_pci_alloc_idx(s, pbdev)) {
>> @@ -1069,6 +1062,11 @@ static void s390_pcihost_plug(HotplugHandler
>> *hotplug_dev, DeviceState *dev,
>> } else if (object_dynamic_cast(OBJECT(dev), TYPE_PCI_DEVICE)) {
>> pdev = PCI_DEVICE(dev);
>> + if (pdev->cap_present & QEMU_PCI_CAP_MULTIFUNCTION) {
>> + error_setg(errp, "multifunction not supported in s390");
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> if (!dev->id) {
>> /* In the case the PCI device does not define an id */
>> /* we generate one based on the PCI address */
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-11 10:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-23 5:00 [PATCH for-9.2 v15 00/11] hw/pci: SR-IOV related fixes and improvements Akihiko Odaki
2024-08-23 5:00 ` [PATCH for-9.2 v15 01/11] hw/pci: Rename has_power to enabled Akihiko Odaki
2024-08-23 5:00 ` [PATCH for-9.2 v15 02/11] hw/ppc/spapr_pci: Do not create DT for disabled PCI device Akihiko Odaki
2024-08-23 5:00 ` [PATCH for-9.2 v15 03/11] hw/ppc/spapr_pci: Do not reject VFs created after a PF Akihiko Odaki
2024-08-23 5:00 ` [PATCH for-9.2 v15 04/11] s390x/pci: Check for multifunction after device realization Akihiko Odaki
2024-09-10 13:22 ` Cédric Le Goater
2024-09-11 9:38 ` Cédric Le Goater
2024-09-11 10:58 ` Akihiko Odaki [this message]
2024-09-11 11:23 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2024-09-11 13:53 ` Matthew Rosato
2024-09-11 15:15 ` Akihiko Odaki
2024-09-11 21:11 ` Matthew Rosato
2024-09-12 6:40 ` Akihiko Odaki
2024-08-23 5:00 ` [PATCH for-9.2 v15 05/11] pcie_sriov: Do not manually unrealize Akihiko Odaki
2024-08-23 5:00 ` [PATCH for-9.2 v15 06/11] pcie_sriov: Reuse SR-IOV VF device instances Akihiko Odaki
2024-08-23 5:00 ` [PATCH for-9.2 v15 07/11] pcie_sriov: Release VFs failed to realize Akihiko Odaki
2024-08-23 5:00 ` [PATCH for-9.2 v15 08/11] pcie_sriov: Remove num_vfs from PCIESriovPF Akihiko Odaki
2024-08-23 5:00 ` [PATCH for-9.2 v15 09/11] pcie_sriov: Register VFs after migration Akihiko Odaki
2024-08-23 5:00 ` [PATCH for-9.2 v15 10/11] hw/pci: Use -1 as the default value for rombar Akihiko Odaki
2024-08-23 5:00 ` [PATCH for-9.2 v15 11/11] hw/qdev: Remove opts member Akihiko Odaki
2024-09-10 9:21 ` [PATCH for-9.2 v15 00/11] hw/pci: SR-IOV related fixes and improvements Michael S. Tsirkin
2024-09-10 9:33 ` Akihiko Odaki
2024-09-10 11:47 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2024-09-10 13:21 ` Cédric Le Goater
2024-09-10 13:34 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2024-09-10 14:13 ` Cédric Le Goater
2024-09-10 15:27 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2024-09-11 3:05 ` Akihiko Odaki
2024-09-11 10:00 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2024-09-11 10:09 ` Cédric Le Goater
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=eaebda7d-c61e-4ed8-a6b9-98e5f48f26ff@daynix.com \
--to=akihiko.odaki@daynix.com \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=clg@redhat.com \
--cc=eduardo@habkost.net \
--cc=farman@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=its@irrelevant.dk \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com \
--cc=mjrosato@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=philmd@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-block@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=sriram.yagnaraman@ericsson.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).