Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 17:14 +0200, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
>> Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> [fix Joerg's email address]
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Alex Williamson
>>>> <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> We've confirmed that peer-to-peer between these devices is
>>>>> not possible. We can therefore claim that they support a
>>>>> subset of ACS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Joerg Roedel <Joerg.Roedel@xxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> Two things about this patch make me a little nervous. The
>>>>> first is that I'd really like to have a pci_is_pcie() test
>>>>> in pci_mf_no_p2p_acs_enabled(), but these devices don't
>>>>> have a PCIe capability. That means that if there was a
>>>>> topology where these devices sit on a legacy PCI bus,
>>>>> we incorrectly return that we're ACS safe here. That leads
>>>>> to my second problem, pciids seems to suggest that some of
>>>>> these functions have been around for a while. Is it just
>>>>> this package that's peer-to-peer safe, or is it safe to
>>>>> assume that any previous assembly of these functions is
>>>>> also p2p safe. Maybe we need to factor in device revs if
>>>>> that uniquely identifies this package?
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks like another useful device to potentially quirk
>>>>> would be:
>>>>>
>>>>> 00:15.0 PCI bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] nee ATI SB700/SB800/SB900 PCI to PCI bridge (PCIE port 0)
>>>>> 00:15.1 PCI bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] nee ATI SB700/SB800/SB900 PCI to PCI bridge (PCIE port 1)
>>>>> 00:15.2 PCI bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] nee ATI SB900 PCI to PCI bridge (PCIE port 2)
>>>>> 00:15.3 PCI bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] nee ATI SB900 PCI to PCI bridge (PCIE port 3)
>>>>>
>>>>> 00:15.0 0604: 1002:43a0
>>>>> 00:15.1 0604: 1002:43a1
>>>>> 00:15.2 0604: 1002:43a2
>>>>> 00:15.3 0604: 1002:43a3
>>>>>
>>>>> drivers/pci/quirks.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/quirks.c b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
>>>>> index 4ebc865..2c84961 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/quirks.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
>>>>> @@ -3271,11 +3271,40 @@ struct pci_dev *pci_get_dma_source(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>>> return pci_dev_get(dev);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * Multifunction devices that do not support peer-to-peer between
>>>>> + * functions can claim to support a subset of ACS. Such devices
>>>>> + * effectively enable request redirect (RR) and completion redirect (CR)
>>>>> + * since all transactions are redirected to the upstream root complex.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +static int pci_mf_no_p2p_acs_enabled(struct pci_dev *dev, u16 acs_flags)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + if (!dev->multifunction)
>>>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* Filter out flags not applicable to multifunction */
>>>>> + acs_flags &= (PCI_ACS_RR | PCI_ACS_CR | PCI_ACS_EC | PCI_ACS_DT);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return acs_flags & ~(PCI_ACS_RR | PCI_ACS_CR) ? 0 : 1;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> static const struct pci_dev_acs_enabled {
>>>>> u16 vendor;
>>>>> u16 device;
>>>>> int (*acs_enabled)(struct pci_dev *dev, u16 acs_flags);
>>>>> } pci_dev_acs_enabled[] = {
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * AMD/ATI multifunction southbridge devices. AMD has confirmed
>>>>> + * that peer-to-peer between these devices is not possible, so
>>>>> + * they do support a subset of ACS even though the capability is
>>>>> + * not exposed in config space.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_ATI, 0x4385, pci_mf_no_p2p_acs_enabled },
>>>>> + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_ATI, 0x439c, pci_mf_no_p2p_acs_enabled },
>>>>> + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_ATI, 0x4383, pci_mf_no_p2p_acs_enabled },
>>>>> + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_ATI, 0x439d, pci_mf_no_p2p_acs_enabled },
>>>>> + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_ATI, 0x4384, pci_mf_no_p2p_acs_enabled },
>>>>> + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_ATI, 0x4399, pci_mf_no_p2p_acs_enabled },
>>>>> { 0 }
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was looking for something else and found this old email. This patch
>>>> hasn't been applied and I haven't seen any discussion about it. Is it
>>>> still of interest? It seems relevant to the current ACS discussion
>>>> [1].
>>
>> It is absolutely relevant. I always have to patch my kernel to get it
>> working to put my pci device to VM. Meanwhile I'm doing it for
>> kernel 3.9. I would be very glad to get these patches to the kernel as
>> they don't do anything bad!
>
> I'd still like to see this get in too. IIRC, where we left off was that
> Joerg had confirmed with the hardware folks that there is no
> peer-to-peer between these devices, but we still had questions about
> whether that was true for any instance of these vendor/device IDs.
> These devices are re-used in several packages and I'm not sure if we
> need to somehow figure out what package (ie. which chipset generation)
> we're looking at to know if p2p is used.
Does this statement cover your question?
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.kvm.devel/99402
Andreas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
