> -----Original Message----- > From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 12:12 PM > To: Jake Oshins <jakeo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Dexuan Cui <decui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Lorenzo Pieralisi > <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx>; bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx; Alex Williamson > <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx>; wei.liu@xxxxxxxxxx; KY Srinivasan > <kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Stephen > Hemminger <sthemmin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-hyperv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Michael Kelley (LINUX) > <mikelley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; robh@xxxxxxxxxx; kw@xxxxxxxxx; > kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] PCI: hv: Do not set PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY > to reduce VM boot time > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 07:25:43PM +0000, Jake Oshins wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Dexuan Cui <decui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 11:32 AM > > > To: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Jake Oshins <jakeo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Bjorn Helgaas > > > <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>; bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx; Alex Williamson > > > <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx>; wei.liu@xxxxxxxxxx; KY Srinivasan > > > <kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Stephen > > > Hemminger <sthemmin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-hyperv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > > linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Michael > > > Kelley (LINUX) <mikelley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; robh@xxxxxxxxxx; > > > kw@xxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] PCI: hv: Do not set PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY to > > > reduce VM boot time > > > > > > > From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 9:45 AM > > > > > ... > > > > > Sorry I don't quite follow. pci-hyperv allocates MMIO for the > > > > > bridge window in hv_pci_allocate_bridge_windows() and registers > > > > > the MMIO ranges to the core PCI driver via pci_add_resource(), > > > > > and later the core PCI driver probes the bus/device(s), > > > > > validates the BAR sizes and the pre-initialized BAR values, and uses the > BAR configuration. > > > > > IMO the whole process doesn't require the bit > PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY > > > > > to be pre-set, and there should be no issue to delay setting the > > > > > bit to a PCI device device's .probe() -> pci_enable_device(). > > > > > > > > IIUC you want to bootstrap devices with PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY clear > > > > (otherwise PCI core would toggle it on and off for eg BAR sizing). > > > > > > > > Is that correct ? > > > > > > Yes, that's the exact purpose of this patch. > > > > > > Do you see any potential architectural issue with the patch? > > > From my reading of the core PCI code, it looks like this should be safe. > > I don't know much about Hyper-V, but in general I don't think the PCI core > should turn on PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY at all unless a driver requests it. I > assume that if a guest OS depends on PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY being set, > guest firmware would take care of setting it. > > > > Jake has some concerns that I don't quite follow. > > > @Jake, could you please explain the concerns with more details? > > > > First, let me say that I really don't know whether this is an issue. > > I know it's an issue with other operating system kernels. I'm curious > > whether the Linux kernel / Linux PCI driver would behave in a way that > > has an issue here. > > > > The VM has a window of address space into which it chooses to put PCI > > device's BARs. The guest OS will generally pick the value that is > > within the BAR, by default, but it can theoretically place the device > > in any free address space. The subset of the VM's memory address > > space which can be populated by devices' BARs is finite, and generally > > not particularly large. > > > > Imagine a VM that is configured with 25 NVMe controllers, each of > > which requires 64KiB of address space. (This is just an example.) At > > first boot, all of these NVMe controllers are packed into address > > space, one after the other. > > > > While that VM is running, one of the 25 NVMe controllers fails and is > > replaced with an NVMe controller from a separate manufacturer, but > > this one requires 128KiB of memory, for some reason. Perhaps it > > implements the "controller buffer" feature of NVMe. It doesn't fit in > > the hole that was vacated by the failed NVMe controller, so it needs > > to be placed somewhere else in address space. This process continues > > over months, with several more failures and replacements. > > Eventually, the address space is very fragmented. > > > > At some point, there is an attempt to place an NVMe controller into > > the VM but there is no contiguous block of address space free which > > would allow that NVMe controller to operate. There is, however, > > enough total address space if the other, currently functioning, NVMe > > controllers are moved from the address space that they are using to > > other ranges, consolidating their usage and reducing fragmentation. > > Let's call this a rebalancing of memory resources. > > > > When the NVMe controllers are moved, a new value is written into their > > BAR. In general, the PCI spec would require that you clear the memory > > enable bit in the command register (PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY) during this > > move operation, both so that there's never a moment when two devices > > are occupying the same address space and because writing a 64-bit BAR > > atomically isn't possible. This is the reason that I originally wrote > > the code in this driver to unmap the device from the VM's address > > space when the memory enable bit is cleared. > > > > What I don't know is whether this sequence of operations can ever > > happen in Linux, or perhaps in a VM running Linux. Will it rebalance > > resources in order to consolidate address space? If it will, will > > this involve clearing the memory enable bit to ensure that two devices > > never overlap? > > This sequence definitely can occur in Linux, but it hasn't yet become a real > priority. But we do already have issues with assigning space for hot-added > devices in general, especially if firmware hasn't assigned large windows to > things like Thunderbolt controllers. I suspect that we have or will soon have > issues where resource assignment starts failing after a few hotplugs, e.g., > dock/undock events. > > There have been patches posted to rebalance resources (quiesce drivers, > reassign, restart drivers), but they haven't gone anywhere yet for lack of > interest and momentum. I do feel like we're the tracks and the train is coming, > though ;) > > Bjorn Thanks everybody for responding to my questions. Bjorn, from your response, it sounds like this change is safe until some possible future which new functionality is introduced for rebalancing resources. Dexuan, I don't have any further objection to the patch. -- Jake Oshins
