On Tue, 17 May 2022 15:32:17 +0530
Abhishek Sahu <abhsahu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> According to [PCIe v5 9.6.2] for PF Device Power Management States
>
> "The PF's power management state (D-state) has global impact on its
> associated VFs. If a VF does not implement the Power Management
> Capability, then it behaves as if it is in an equivalent
> power state of its associated PF.
>
> If a VF implements the Power Management Capability, the Device behavior
> is undefined if the PF is placed in a lower power state than the VF.
> Software should avoid this situation by placing all VFs in lower power
> state before lowering their associated PF's power state."
>
> From the vfio driver side, user can enable SR-IOV when the PF is in D3hot
> state. If VF does not implement the Power Management Capability, then
> the VF will be actually in D3hot state and then the VF BAR access will
> fail. If VF implements the Power Management Capability, then VF will
> assume that its current power state is D0 when the PF is D3hot and
> in this case, the behavior is undefined.
>
> To support PF power management, we need to create power management
> dependency between PF and its VF's. The runtime power management support
> may help with this where power management dependencies are supported
> through device links. But till we have such support in place, we can
> disallow the PF to go into low power state, if PF has VF enabled.
> There can be a case, where user first enables the VF's and then
> disables the VF's. If there is no user of PF, then the PF can put into
> D3hot state again. But with this patch, the PF will still be in D0
> state after disabling VF's since detecting this case inside
> vfio_pci_core_sriov_configure() requires access to
> struct vfio_device::open_count along with its locks. But the subsequent
> patches related to runtime PM will handle this case since runtime PM
> maintains its own usage count.
>
> Also, vfio_pci_core_sriov_configure() can be called at any time
> (with and without vfio pci device user), so the power state change
> needs to be protected with the required locks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Sahu <abhsahu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c | 11 +++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c
> index b9f222ca48cf..4fe9a4efc751 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c
> @@ -217,6 +217,10 @@ int vfio_pci_set_power_state(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev, pci_power_t stat
> bool needs_restore = false, needs_save = false;
> int ret;
>
> + /* Prevent changing power state for PFs with VFs enabled */
> + if (pci_num_vf(pdev) && state > PCI_D0)
> + return -EBUSY;
> +
> if (vdev->needs_pm_restore) {
> if (pdev->current_state < PCI_D3hot && state >= PCI_D3hot) {
> pci_save_state(pdev);
> @@ -1960,6 +1964,13 @@ int vfio_pci_core_sriov_configure(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev,
> }
> list_add_tail(&vdev->sriov_pfs_item, &vfio_pci_sriov_pfs);
> mutex_unlock(&vfio_pci_sriov_pfs_mutex);
> +
> + /*
> + * The PF power state should always be higher than the VF power
> + * state. If PF is in the low power state, then change the
> + * power state to D0 first before enabling SR-IOV.
> + */
> + vfio_pci_lock_and_set_power_state(vdev, PCI_D0);
But we need to hold memory_lock across the next function or else
userspace could race a write to the PM register to set D3 before
pci_num_vf() can protect us. Thanks,
Alex
> ret = pci_enable_sriov(pdev, nr_virtfn);
> if (ret)
> goto out_del;
