On 11/02/2015 12:33 AM, Wei Yang wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 08:57:17AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
On 10/29/2015 11:00 PM, ethan zhao wrote:
Wei,
On 2015/10/30 13:14, Wei Yang wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 05:23:22PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
From: Alexander Duyck <aduyck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Per sec 3.3.3.1 of the SR-IOV spec, r1.1, we must allow 1.0s after
clearing
VF Enable before reading any field in the SR-IOV Extended Capability.
Wait 1 second before calling pci_iov_set_numvfs(), which reads
PCI_SRIOV_VF_OFFSET and PCI_SRIOV_VF_STRIDE after it sets
PCI_SRIOV_NUM_VF.
[bhelgaas: split to separate patch for reviewability, add spec
reference]
Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <aduyck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/pci/iov.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pci/iov.c b/drivers/pci/iov.c
index fada98d..24428d5 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/iov.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/iov.c
@@ -339,13 +339,13 @@ 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_iov_set_numvfs(dev, 0);
ssleep(1);
pci_cfg_access_unlock(dev);
if (iov->link != dev->devfn)
sysfs_remove_link(&dev->dev.kobj, "dep_link");
+ pci_iov_set_numvfs(dev, 0);
One small question, any specific reason put it here instead of just after
sleep()?
Agree, pci_iov_set_numvfs(dev, 0) should be put before
pci_cfg_access_unlock(dev) to avoid race, because "NumVFs may only be
written while VF Enable is Clear"
We are already guaranteeing that aren't we? I'm assuming there is already
code in place here somewhere that prevents us from both enabling and
disabling SR-IOV from more than one thread. Otherwise how could we hope to
have any sort of consistent state?
I'm fine with us being more explicit about it if we want to be, but if we are
going to do it we should probably update all 3 spots where we update NumVFs
after init instead of just this one. Perhaps it should be a separate patch.
Yep, I think the statement is met, "NumVFs may only be written while VF Enable
is Clear".
While in your commit log, the purpose of this patch is to wait 1 second before
write NumVFs. So I am interesting to know why you move this out of the
pci_cfg_access_lock. Because it looks better? have better performance?
Actually, this is a question instead of a challenge :-)
It is because the first call to pci_iov_set_numvfs is done outside of
the pci_cfg_access_lock. This way when I add the clean-up for the bus
numbering failure in patch 7 I don't have to modify as much code either
since the write is already pulled out.
An added bonus is the code is now much closer to what we have in
sriov_disable which has seen much more use than the exception handling
case for sriov_enable, so it has been more thoroughly tested.
- Alex
--
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
