On Thursday 09 June 2022 12:10:22 Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 06:27:25PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > > On Thursday 09 June 2022 11:22:55 Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > [+cc Guilherme, Michael, Ben (author of 63a72284b159 and PPC folks), thread: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220504175718.29011-1-pali@xxxxxxxxxx] > > > > > > On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 12:33:02AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > On Thursday 05 May 2022 15:10:01 Tyrel Datwyler wrote: > > > > > On 5/5/22 02:31, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday 05 May 2022 07:16:40 Christophe Leroy wrote: > > > > > >> Le 04/05/2022 à 19:57, Pali Rohár a écrit : > > > > > >>> Since commit 63a72284b159 ("powerpc/pci: Assign fixed PHB > > > > > >>> number based on device-tree properties"), powerpc kernel > > > > > >>> always fallback to PCI domain assignment from OF / Device Tree > > > > > >>> 'reg' property of the PCI controller. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> PCI code for other Linux architectures use increasing > > > > > >>> assignment of the PCI domain for individual controllers > > > > > >>> (assign the first free number), like it was also for powerpc > > > > > >>> prior mentioned commit. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Upgrading powerpc kernels from LTS 4.4 version (which does not > > > > > >>> contain mentioned commit) to new LTS versions brings a > > > > > >>> regression in domain assignment. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Can you elaborate why it is a regression ? > > > > > >> 63a72284b159 That commit says 'no functionnal changes', I'm > > > > > >> having hard time understanding how a nochange can be a > > > > > >> regression. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not 'no functional change'. That commit completely changed > > > > > > PCI domain assignment in a way that is incompatible with other > > > > > > architectures and also incompatible with the way how it was done > > > > > > prior that commit. > > > > > > > > > > I agree that the "no functional change" statement is incorrect. > > > > > However, for most powerpc platforms it ended up being simply a > > > > > cosmetic behavior change. As far as I can tell there is nothing > > > > > requiring domain ids to increase montonically from zero or that > > > > > each architecture is required to use the same domain numbering > > > > > scheme. > > > > > > > > That is truth. But it looks really suspicious why domains are not > > > > assigned monotonically. Some scripts / applications are using PCI > > > > location (domain:bus:dev:func) for remembering PCI device and domain > > > > change can cause issue for config files. And some (older) applications > > > > expects existence of domain zero. In systems without hot plug support > > > > with small number of domains (e.g. 3) it means that there are always > > > > domains 0, 1 and 2. > > > > > > > > > Its hard to call this a true regression unless it actually broke > > > > > something. The commit in question has been in the kernel since 4.8 > > > > > which was released over 5 1/2 years ago. > > > > > > > > I agree, it really depends on how you look at it. > > > > > > > > The important is that lot of people are using LTS versions and are > > > > doing upgrades when LTS support is dropped. Which for 4.4 now > > > > happened. So not all smaller or "cosmetic" changes could be detected > > > > until longer LTS period pass. > > > > > > > > > With all that said looking closer at the code in question I think > > > > > it is fair to assume that the author only intended this change for > > > > > powernv and pseries platforms and not every powerpc platform. That > > > > > change was done to make persistent naming easier to manage in > > > > > userspace. > > > > > > > > I agree that this behavior change may be useful in some situations > > > > and I do not object this need. > > > > > > > > > Your change defaults back to the old behavior which will now break > > > > > both powernv and pseries platforms with regard to hotplugging and > > > > > persistent naming. > > > > > > > > I was aware of it, that change could cause issues. And that is why I > > > > added config option for choosing behavior. So users would be able to > > > > choose what they need. > > > > > > > > > We could properly limit it to powernv and pseries by using > > > > > ibm,fw-phb-id instead of reg property in the look up that follows > > > > > a failed ibm,opal-phbid lookup. I think this is acceptable as long > > > > > as no other powerpc platforms have started using this behavior for > > > > > persistent naming. > > > > > > > > And what about setting that new config option to enabled by default > > > > for those series? > > > > > > > > Or is there issue with introduction of the new config option? > > > > > > > > One of the point is that it is really a good idea to have > > > > similar/same behavior for all linux platforms. And if it cannot be > > > > enabled by default (for backward compatibility) add at least some > > > > option, so new platforms can start using it or users can decide to > > > > switch behavior. > > > > > > This is a powerpc thing so I'm just kibbitzing a little. > > > > > > This basically looks like a new config option to selectively revert > > > 63a72284b159. That seems hard to maintain and doesn't seem like > > > something that needs to be baked into the kernel at compile-time. > > > > > > The 63a72284b159 commit log says persistent NIC names are tied to PCI > > > domain/bus/dev/fn addresses, which seems like something we should > > > discourage because we can't predict PCI addresses in general. I > > > assume other platforms typically use udev with MAC addresses or > > > something? > > > > This is not about ethernet NIC cards only. But affects also WiFi cards > > (which registers phy dev, not netdev) and also all other PCIe cards > > which do not have to be network-based. Hence MAC address or udev does > > not play role there. > > What persistent naming mechanism do other platforms use in those > cases? For example sysfs path which contains domain/bus/dev/fn numbers. And these numbers were changed in that mentioned commit. > I forgot to ask before about the actual regression here. The commit > log says domain numbers are different, but I don't know the connection > from there to something failing. I assume there's some script or > config file that depends on specific domain numbers? And that > dependency is (hopefully) powerpc-specific? > > Bjorn You assume correct. For example this is the way how OpenWRT handles PCI devices (but not only OpenWRT). This OpenWRT case is not powerpc-specific but generic to all architectures. This is just one example.
