On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:21:21AM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > *(cc'd back Bjorn and the list) > > On 2019-06-19 8:00 a.m., Nicholas Johnson wrote: > > Hi Ben and Logan, > > > > It looks like my git send-email has been not working correctly since I > > started trying to get these patches accepted. I may have remedied this > > now, but I have seen that Logan tried to find these patches and failed. > > So as a courtesy until I post PATCH v7 (hopefully correctly, this time), > > I am forwarding you the patches. I hope you like them. I would love to > > know of any concerns or questions you may have, and / or what happens if > > you test them. Thanks and all the best! > > > > ----- Forwarded message from Nicholas Johnson <nicholas.johnson-opensource@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ----- > > > > Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 06:29:27 +0800 > > From: Nicholas Johnson <nicholas.johnson-opensource@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > To: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx, mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, corbet@xxxxxxx, Nicholas Johnson <nicholas.johnson-opensource@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: [PATCH v6 3/4] PCI: Fix bug resulting in double hpmemsize being assigned to MMIO window > > X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.19.1 > > > > Background > > ========================================================================== > > > > Solve bug report: > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=203243 > > This is all kinds of confusing... the bug report just seems to be a copy > of the patch set. The description of the actual symptoms of the problem > appears to be missing from all of it. > > > Currently, the kernel can sometimes assign the MMIO_PREF window > > additional size into the MMIO window, resulting in double the MMIO > > additional size, even if the MMIO_PREF window was successful. > > > > This happens if in the first pass, the MMIO_PREF succeeds but the MMIO > > fails. In the next pass, because MMIO_PREF is already assigned, the > > attempt to assign MMIO_PREF returns an error code instead of success > > (nothing more to do, already allocated). > > > > Example of problem (more context can be found in the bug report URL): > > > > Mainline kernel: > > pci 0000:06:01.0: BAR 14: assigned [mem 0x90100000-0xa00fffff] = 256M > > pci 0000:06:04.0: BAR 14: assigned [mem 0xa0200000-0xb01fffff] = 256M > > > > Patched kernel: > > pci 0000:06:01.0: BAR 14: assigned [mem 0x90100000-0x980fffff] = 128M > > pci 0000:06:04.0: BAR 14: assigned [mem 0x98200000-0xa01fffff] = 128M > > > > This was using pci=realloc,hpmemsize=128M,nocrs - on the same machine > > with the same configuration, with a Ubuntu mainline kernel and a kernel > > patched with this patch series. > > > > This patch is vital for the next patch in the series. The next patch > > allows the user to specify MMIO and MMIO_PREF independently. If the > > MMIO_PREF is set to be very large, this bug will end up more than > > doubling the MMIO size. The bug results in the MMIO_PREF being added to > > the MMIO window, which means doubling if MMIO_PREF size == MMIO size. > > With a large MMIO_PREF, without this patch, the MMIO window will likely > > fail to be assigned altogether due to lack of 32-bit address space. > > > > Patch notes > > ========================================================================== > > > > Change find_free_bus_resource() to not skip assigned resources with > > non-null parent. > > > > Add checks in pbus_size_io() and pbus_size_mem() to return success if > > resource returned from find_free_bus_resource() is already allocated. > > > > This avoids pbus_size_io() and pbus_size_mem() returning error code to > > __pci_bus_size_bridges() when a resource has been successfully assigned > > in a previous pass. This fixes the existing behaviour where space for a > > resource could be reserved multiple times in different parent bridge > > windows. This also greatly reduces the number of failed BAR messages in > > dmesg when Linux assigns resources. > > This patch looks like the same bug that I tracked down earlier but I > solved in a slightly different way. See this patch[1] which is still > under review. Can you maybe test it and see if it solves the same problem? > > Thanks, > > Logan > > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190531171216.20532-2-logang@xxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u [1] says Reported-by: Kit Chow, but I cannot find the bug report on bugzilla.kernel.org - should I be linking the bug reports into my version of this patch in case it is accepted? Bjorn never replied to my queries about which should be accepted and what I should do either way. For now I am moving my version of this patch to the end of my series so that it can easily be knocked off if Bjorn prefers your patch. Cheers Nicholas
