On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 11:26:48AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> The API of pci_alloc_irq_vectors_affinity() requires to return -ENOSPC
> if leass than @min_vecs interrupt vectors are available for @dev.
s/leass/fewer/
> However, this way may be changed by falling back to
> __pci_enable_msi_range(), for example, if the device isn't capable of
> MSI, __pci_enable_msi_range() will return -EINVAL, and finally it is
> returned to users of pci_alloc_irq_vectors_affinity() even though
> there are quite MSIX vectors available. This way violates the interface.
I *think* the above means:
If a device supports MSI-X but not MSI and a caller requests
@min_vecs that can't be satisfied by MSI-X, we previously returned
-EINVAL (from the failed attempt to enable MSI), not -ENOSPC.
and I agree that this doesn't match the documented API.
> Users of pci_alloc_irq_vectors_affinity() may try to reduce irq
> vectors and allocate vectors again in case that -ENOSPC is returned, such
> as NVMe, so we need to respect the current interface and give preference to
> -ENOSPC.
I thought the whole point of the (min_vecs, max_vecs) tuple was to
avoid this sort of "reduce and try again" iteration in the callers.
> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxx>,
> Cc: Keith Busch <keith.busch@xxxxxxxxx>,
> Cc: linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>,
> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/pci/msi.c | 20 +++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/msi.c b/drivers/pci/msi.c
> index 7a1c8a09efa5..91b4f03fee91 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/msi.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/msi.c
> @@ -1168,7 +1168,8 @@ int pci_alloc_irq_vectors_affinity(struct pci_dev *dev, unsigned int min_vecs,
> const struct irq_affinity *affd)
> {
> static const struct irq_affinity msi_default_affd;
> - int vecs = -ENOSPC;
> + int msix_vecs = -ENOSPC;
> + int msi_vecs = -ENOSPC;
>
> if (flags & PCI_IRQ_AFFINITY) {
> if (!affd)
> @@ -1179,16 +1180,17 @@ int pci_alloc_irq_vectors_affinity(struct pci_dev *dev, unsigned int min_vecs,
> }
>
> if (flags & PCI_IRQ_MSIX) {
> - vecs = __pci_enable_msix_range(dev, NULL, min_vecs, max_vecs,
> - affd);
> - if (vecs > 0)
> - return vecs;
> + msix_vecs = __pci_enable_msix_range(dev, NULL, min_vecs,
> + max_vecs, affd);
> + if (msix_vecs > 0)
> + return msix_vecs;
> }
>
> if (flags & PCI_IRQ_MSI) {
> - vecs = __pci_enable_msi_range(dev, min_vecs, max_vecs, affd);
> - if (vecs > 0)
> - return vecs;
> + msi_vecs = __pci_enable_msi_range(dev, min_vecs, max_vecs,
> + affd);
> + if (msi_vecs > 0)
> + return msi_vecs;
> }
>
> /* use legacy irq if allowed */
> @@ -1199,7 +1201,7 @@ int pci_alloc_irq_vectors_affinity(struct pci_dev *dev, unsigned int min_vecs,
> }
> }
>
> - return vecs;
> + return msix_vecs == -ENOSPC ? msix_vecs : msi_vecs;
If you know you want to return -ENOSPC, just return that, not a
variable that happens to contain it, i.e.,
if (msix_vecs == -ENOSPC)
return -ENOSPC;
return msi_vecs;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_alloc_irq_vectors_affinity);
>
> --
> 2.9.5
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-nvme mailing list
> Linux-nvme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvme
