On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 05:11:14PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>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.
>
Are you talking about 1ms or 100ms? I assume it's 100ms. If I
understand things correctly, 100ms delay before issuing config
read request, CRS can be returned before it reaches the timeout
(1 second).
>While from the SPEC, I don't see some description the NumVFs field will take
>some time to be effective.
>
If I'm correct, we can't change NumVFs without disabling/reanbling VFs.
Thanks,
Gavin
--
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
