Hi Bjorn, > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] PCI/P2PDMA: Don't enforce ACS check for > functions of same device > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 03:20:02PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > On 2024-10-30 12:46, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 06:57:37AM +0000, Kasireddy, Vivek wrote: > > > In the PCIe world, I don't think a TLP can "loop back" to another > > > function on the same device. > > > > I'm not sure if the spec says anything that specifically denies this. > > I'm not a hardware guy and I don't know if there's a direct statement > about it, but if a Downstream Port supports ACS, it must support ACS > P2P Request Redirect (PCIe r6.0, sec 6.12.1.1), which specifically > applies to peer-to-peer TLPs. > > If peer-to-peer TLPs appear on the link, the Downstream Port will see > them and act on them, e.g., either route them upstream (if P2P Request > Redirect is enabled) or back downstream. I don't think the VF could > act on them directly via a loopback path because that would lead to > duplicate writes and duplicate Completions for reads. > > > But it seems to me that it would be possible for a multifunction device > > to handle a transfer to a neighbouring function internally and not > > actually involve the PCIe fabric. This seems like something we'd want to > > support if and when such a device were to be created. > > If peer-to-peer transactions are handled internally, an SR-IOV device > other than an RCiEP is required to support ACS with P2P Egress Control > (sec 7.7.11) and P2P Request Redirect (sec 7.7.11.2). As Logan suggests, my use-case does not involve using the PCIe fabric to accomplish the DMA access between PF and VF. Instead, the PF's (GPU) driver handles VF's BAR addresses (associated with the buffer) by translating them into a different (internal and local) address space before facilitating access. To articulate further, in my use-case, there is a driver A (that is bound to VF) that needs to share a buffer with driver B (associated with the PF). However, driver A would like to know if B can access its buffer or not, so it calls pci_p2pdma_distance(A, B, ...) to check, as both PF and VF are PCI devices. But given that pci_p2pdma_distance_many() uses ACS as the main criterion (in addition to the bridge whitelist and a specific CPU type), it determines that the access is invalid (as ACS redirect is set). IIUC, it appears that pci_p2pdma_distance_many() is not the right tool to use to check for access validity in my use-case, as it assumes the provider and client would always use PCIe fabric for DMA. I think it either needs to be augmented to handle various situations or a new helper is needed. What is your recommended solution for this issue? Thanks, Vivek > > Bjorn
