Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1465781 > unrolled thread

Re: x86/PCI: Scan all functions during probing

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: x86/PCI: Scan all functions during probing Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> - 2016-08-19 03:30 +0200
    Re: x86/PCI: Scan all functions during probing Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-08-24 10:50 +0200
      Re: x86/PCI: Scan all functions during probing Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> - 2016-08-24 13:20 +0200
        Re: x86/PCI: Scan all functions during probing Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-08-24 19:30 +0200

#1465781 — Re: x86/PCI: Scan all functions during probing

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 08:44:53AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> [+cc Lukas]
> 
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 01:22:30PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > From: Benedikt Spranger <b.spranger@linutronix.de>
> > 
> > PCI and PCIBIOS probing only scans devices at function number 0/8/16/...
> > Subdevices (e.g. multiqueue) have function numbers which are not a
> > multiple of 8.
> > 
> > Simple hypervisors (e.g. Jailhouse) pass subdevices directly w/o providing
> > virtual PCI mappings like KVM. As a consequence a simple PCI passthrough from
> > Jailhouse to a linux guest is not able to detect such devices.
> > 
> > Changing the probe functions to scan all function numbers makes it work. This
> > has no side effects and there is no reason to force the 0/8/16... probing
> > scheme.
> 
> "devfn" here is a 8-bit field (5 bits of device number and 3 bits of
> function number), so incrementing by 8 is really a way of looking at
> function 0 of each device number.  I'm pretty sure this is based on
> something in the spec that says a multi-function device must implement
> function 0.  Please look that up and include a reference in the
> changelog so we have a more complete story here.
> 
> It's possible there are other assumptions in the code about
> multi-function devices always having a function 0.  It would take a
> little more research to be certain that this wouldn't break anything.
> 
> As Lukas pointed out, it does increase the number of probe attempts by
> a factor of 8.  I don't know how much that will affect boot time, but
> it's certainly something to consider and hopefully quantify.

Any comments on this?  I'm waiting for at least the spec reference
and hopefully some warm fuzzies about boot time and safety.

I looked up the spec: PCI (not PCIe) r3.0, sec 3.2.2.3.4, says:

  A single-function device may optionally respond to all function
  numbers as the same function or may ... respond only to function 0
  and not respond to the other function numbers.

I'm concerned that a single-function device that responds to all
function numbers might break with this patch.

  [multi-function devices] are also required to always implement
  function 0 in the device.

Here's the reason we can advance by 8 in the "Go find them" loop.

  If a single function device is detected (i.e., bit 7 in the Header
  Type register of function 0 is 0), no more functions for that Device
  Number will be checked.  If a multi-function device is detected
  (i.e., bit 7 in the Header Type register of function 0 is 1), then
  all remaining Function Numbers will be checked.

This patch does the opposite of what the first sentence recommends.

> > Signed-off-by: Benedikt Spranger <b.spranger@linutronix.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/pci/legacy.c |    2 +-
> >  drivers/pci/probe.c   |    2 +-
> >  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > --- a/arch/x86/pci/legacy.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/pci/legacy.c
> > @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ void pcibios_scan_specific_bus(int busn)
> >  	if (pci_find_bus(0, busn))
> >  		return;
> >  
> > -	for (devfn = 0; devfn < 256; devfn += 8) {
> > +	for (devfn = 0; devfn < 256; devfn++) {
> >  		if (!raw_pci_read(0, busn, devfn, PCI_VENDOR_ID, 2, &l) &&
> >  		    l != 0x0000 && l != 0xffff) {
> >  			DBG("Found device at %02x:%02x [%04x]\n", busn, devfn, l);
> > --- a/drivers/pci/probe.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/probe.c
> > @@ -2063,7 +2063,7 @@ unsigned int pci_scan_child_bus(struct p
> >  	dev_dbg(&bus->dev, "scanning bus\n");
> >  
> >  	/* Go find them, Rover! */
> > -	for (devfn = 0; devfn < 0x100; devfn += 8)
> > +	for (devfn = 0; devfn < 0x100; devfn++)
> >  		pci_scan_slot(bus, devfn);
> >  
> >  	/* Reserve buses for SR-IOV capability. */
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1469222

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> I looked up the spec: PCI (not PCIe) r3.0, sec 3.2.2.3.4, says:
> 
>   A single-function device may optionally respond to all function
>   numbers as the same function or may ... respond only to function 0
>   and not respond to the other function numbers.
> 
> I'm concerned that a single-function device that responds to all
> function numbers might break with this patch.
> 
>   [multi-function devices] are also required to always implement
>   function 0 in the device.
> 
> Here's the reason we can advance by 8 in the "Go find them" loop.
> 
>   If a single function device is detected (i.e., bit 7 in the Header
>   Type register of function 0 is 0), no more functions for that Device
>   Number will be checked.  If a multi-function device is detected
>   (i.e., bit 7 in the Header Type register of function 0 is 1), then
>   all remaining Function Numbers will be checked.
> 
> This patch does the opposite of what the first sentence recommends.

Fair enough. We'll need to find a way to deal with that in jailhouse then.

Thanks,

	tglx

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1469351

On 2016-08-24 04:39, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> I looked up the spec: PCI (not PCIe) r3.0, sec 3.2.2.3.4, says:
>>
>>   A single-function device may optionally respond to all function
>>   numbers as the same function or may ... respond only to function 0
>>   and not respond to the other function numbers.
>>
>> I'm concerned that a single-function device that responds to all
>> function numbers might break with this patch.
>>
>>   [multi-function devices] are also required to always implement
>>   function 0 in the device.
>>
>> Here's the reason we can advance by 8 in the "Go find them" loop.
>>
>>   If a single function device is detected (i.e., bit 7 in the Header
>>   Type register of function 0 is 0), no more functions for that Device
>>   Number will be checked.  If a multi-function device is detected
>>   (i.e., bit 7 in the Header Type register of function 0 is 1), then
>>   all remaining Function Numbers will be checked.
>>
>> This patch does the opposite of what the first sentence recommends.
> 
> Fair enough. We'll need to find a way to deal with that in jailhouse then.

Wouldn't it also be an option to have this fine-grained scanning only
activated if we detect to run over Jailhouse (which we have to anyway)?
Such code hasn't been proposed for upstream yet, but we will eventually.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA ITP SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1469595

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2016-08-24 04:39, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> I looked up the spec: PCI (not PCIe) r3.0, sec 3.2.2.3.4, says:
> >>
> >>   A single-function device may optionally respond to all function
> >>   numbers as the same function or may ... respond only to function 0
> >>   and not respond to the other function numbers.
> >>
> >> I'm concerned that a single-function device that responds to all
> >> function numbers might break with this patch.
> >>
> >>   [multi-function devices] are also required to always implement
> >>   function 0 in the device.
> >>
> >> Here's the reason we can advance by 8 in the "Go find them" loop.
> >>
> >>   If a single function device is detected (i.e., bit 7 in the Header
> >>   Type register of function 0 is 0), no more functions for that Device
> >>   Number will be checked.  If a multi-function device is detected
> >>   (i.e., bit 7 in the Header Type register of function 0 is 1), then
> >>   all remaining Function Numbers will be checked.
> >>
> >> This patch does the opposite of what the first sentence recommends.
> > 
> > Fair enough. We'll need to find a way to deal with that in jailhouse then.
> 
> Wouldn't it also be an option to have this fine-grained scanning only
> activated if we detect to run over Jailhouse (which we have to anyway)?
> Such code hasn't been proposed for upstream yet, but we will eventually.

That might be an option.

Thanks,

	tglx

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web