[+cc Alex, Don]
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Alexander Duyck
<alexander.h.duyck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 05/27/2014 03:22 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 02:25:17PM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> This fixes an issue I found in which triggering a reset via the PCI sysfs
>>> reset while SR-IOV was enabled would leave the VFs in a state in which the
>>> BME and MSI-X enable bits were all cleared.
>>>
>>> To correct that I have added code so that the VF state is saved and restored
>>> as a part of the PF save and restore state functions. By doing this the VF
>>> state is restored as well as the IOV state allowing the VFs to resume function
>>> following a reset.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/pci/iov.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>> drivers/pci/pci.c | 2 ++
>>> drivers/pci/pci.h | 5 +++++
>>> 3 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/iov.c b/drivers/pci/iov.c
>>> index de7a747..645ed71 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/pci/iov.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/iov.c
>>> @@ -521,13 +521,57 @@ resource_size_t pci_sriov_resource_alignment(struct pci_dev *dev, int resno)
>>> }
>>>
>>> /**
>>> + * pci_save_iov_state - Save the state of the VF configurations
>>> + * @dev: the PCI device
>>> + */
>>> +int pci_save_iov_state(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>> +{
>>> + struct pci_dev *vfdev = NULL;
>>> + unsigned short dev_id;
>>> +
>>> + /* only search if we are a PF */
>>> + if (!dev->is_physfn)
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> + /* retrieve VF device ID */
>>> + pci_read_config_word(dev, dev->sriov->pos + PCI_SRIOV_VF_DID, &dev_id);
...
>>> + /* loop through all the VFs and save their state information */
>>> + while ((vfdev = pci_get_device(dev->vendor, dev_id, vfdev))) {
>>> + if (vfdev->is_virtfn && (vfdev->physfn == dev)) {
>>> + int err = pci_save_state(vfdev);
>>
>> It makes me uneasy to operate on another device (we're resetting A, and
>> here we save state for B). I know B is dependent on A, since B is a VF
>> related to PF A, but what synchronization is there to serialize this
>> against any other save/restore operations that may be in progress by B's
>> driver or by a sysfs operation on B?
>
> I don't believe there is any synchronization mechanism in place
> currently. I can look into that as well. Odds are we probably need to
> have the VFs check the parent lock before they take any independent action.
It's just the whole question of how we manage the single "saved-state"
area. Right now, I think almost all use of it is under control of the
driver that owns the device, in suspend/resume methods. The
exceptions are the PM suspend/freeze/etc. routines in
pci/pci-driver.c, which I assume prevent the driver from running and
are therefore safe, and the reset path. I don't know how the
>> Is there anything in the reset path that pays attention to whether
>> resetting this PF will clobber VFs? Do we care whether those VFs are in
>> use? I assume they might be in use by guests?
>
> The problem I found was that the sysfs reset call doesn't bother to
> check with the PF driver at all. It just clobbers the PF and any VFs on
> it without talking to the PF driver.
There is Keith Busch's recent patch:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/helgaas/pci.git/commit/?h=pci/hotplug&id=3ebe7f9f7e4a4fd1f6461ecd01ff2961317a483a
. I dunno if that's useful to you or not.
And I'm not sure there's actually a requirement to *have* a PF driver.
Obviously there has to be a way to enable the VFs, but once they're
enabled, it might be possible to keep using them via VF drivers even
without a PF driver in the picture.
Maybe resetting the PF should just fail if there's an active VF. If
you need to reset the PF, you'd have to unbind the VFs first.
>>> + if (err)
>>> + return err;
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>
>> pci_get_device() acquires a reference on each device it returns, so this
>> strategy would require a pci_dev_put().
>
> Yes, if I am not mistaken the pci_dev_put is called as a part of
> pci_get_dev_by_id which is what pci_get_device ends up being.
Oh, yeah, you're right. I forgot about that. Since you call it in a
loop until you get NULL back, you're OK. It's only when you stop
before you get NULL that you have to deal with the extra reference.
>> But I'm not really keen on pci_get_device() in the first place. It works
>> by iterating over all PCI devices in the system, which seems like a
>> sledgehammer approach. It *is* widely used, but mostly in quirk-type code
>> from which I avert my eyes.
>>
>> Maybe you could do something based on pci_walk_bus()? If you did that, I
>> think the PCI_SRIOV_VF_DID would become superfluous.
>>
>
> I can look into that, I'm not familiar with the interface. I'll have to
> see what the relationship is between the PF and VF in terms of busses as
> I don't recall it off of the top of my head.
This reminds me about an open problem: VFs can be on "virtual" buses,
which aren't really connected in the hierarchy, and I don't think we
have a nice way to iterate over them. So probably pci_get_device() is
the best we can do now.
Bjorn
--
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
