On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 02:46:52PM +1100, Gavin Shan wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:14:55AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>>On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 10:01:08AM +1100, Gavin Shan wrote:
>>>On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 10:52:39AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>>>>According to SR-IOV spec sec 3.3.9, 3.3.10, the NumVFs setting change will
>>>>affect the offset and stride. Current implementation doesn't refresh the
>>>>offset/stride cached in pci_sriov structure.
>>>>
>>>>This patch introduces a wrapper pci_iov_set_numvfs(), which refresh these two
>>>>value after NumVFs is written.
>>>>
>>>>Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <weiyang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>---
>>>> drivers/pci/iov.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
>>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>>diff --git a/drivers/pci/iov.c b/drivers/pci/iov.c
>>>>index 4d109c0..c7010c5 100644
>>>>--- a/drivers/pci/iov.c
>>>>+++ b/drivers/pci/iov.c
>>>>@@ -31,6 +31,15 @@ static inline u8 virtfn_devfn(struct pci_dev *dev, int id)
>>>> dev->sriov->stride * id) & 0xff;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>+static inline void pci_iov_set_numvfs(struct pci_dev *dev, int nr_virtfn)
>>>>+{
>>>>+ struct pci_sriov *iov = dev->sriov;
>>>>+
>>>>+ pci_write_config_word(dev, iov->pos + PCI_SRIOV_NUM_VF, nr_virtfn);
>>>
>>>I'm suspecting writing to PCI_SRIOV_NUM_VF would take some time to take
>>>effect.
>>>
>>>>+ pci_read_config_word(dev, iov->pos + PCI_SRIOV_VF_OFFSET, &iov->offset);
>>>>+ pci_read_config_word(dev, iov->pos + PCI_SRIOV_VF_STRIDE, &iov->stride);
>>>>+}
>>>>+
>>>> static struct pci_bus *virtfn_add_bus(struct pci_bus *bus, int busnr)
>>>> {
>>>> struct pci_bus *child;
>>>>@@ -243,7 +252,7 @@ static int sriov_enable(struct pci_dev *dev, int nr_virtfn)
>>>> return rc;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>- pci_write_config_word(dev, iov->pos + PCI_SRIOV_NUM_VF, nr_virtfn);
>>>>+ pci_iov_set_numvfs(dev, nr_virtfn);
>>>> iov->ctrl |= PCI_SRIOV_CTRL_VFE | PCI_SRIOV_CTRL_MSE;
>>>> pci_cfg_access_lock(dev);
>>>> pci_write_config_word(dev, iov->pos + PCI_SRIOV_CTRL, iov->ctrl);
>>>>@@ -272,7 +281,7 @@ failed:
>>>> iov->ctrl &= ~(PCI_SRIOV_CTRL_VFE | PCI_SRIOV_CTRL_MSE);
>>>> pci_cfg_access_lock(dev);
>>>> pci_write_config_word(dev, iov->pos + PCI_SRIOV_CTRL, iov->ctrl);
>>>>- pci_write_config_word(dev, iov->pos + PCI_SRIOV_NUM_VF, 0);
>>>>+ pci_iov_set_numvfs(dev, 0);
>>>> ssleep(1);
>>>
>>>The 1 second delay here might be for waiting VFs to be ready.
>>>
>>
>>Hmm... so add this ssleep() in pci_iov_set_numvfs() would be better?
>>
>
>I was not suggesting to do that. I just raised the concern for you
>to look into.
>
I looked in the SPEC sec 3.3.3.1 VF Enable. In this section, it says this:
To allow components to perform internal initialization, system software must wait for at least
100 ms after changing the VF Enable bit from a 0 to a 1, before it is permitted to issue Requests to
the VFs which are enabled by that VF Enable bit. The Root Complex and/or system software must
allow at least 1.0 s after Setting the VF Enable bit, before it may determine that a VF which fails to
return a Successful Completion status for a valid Configuration Request is broken. After Setting the
VF Enable bit, the VFs enabled by that VF Enable bit are permitted to return a CRS status to
configuration requests up to the 1.0 s limit, if they are not ready to provide a Successful Completion
status for a valid Configuration Request. Additionally, a VF is not permitted to return CRS after
having previously returned a Successful Completion without an intervening VF disable or other valid
reset condition.
As my understanding, it will take 1ms or 1s after VF Enable bit is set.
Actually I am confused with the two different time, in which case we needs to
wait for different time? And some place we add a lock, but no lock in others.
While from the SPEC, I don't see some description the NumVFs field will take
some time to be effective.
--
Richard Yang
Help you, Help me
--
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
