On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 03:19:58PM -0700, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 03:05:08PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 05:06:02PM -0700, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > When IOMMU tries to enable PASID for VF device in
> > > iommu_enable_dev_iotlb(), it always fails because PASID support for PCIe
> > > VF device is currently broken in PCIE driver. Current implementation
> > > expects the given PCIe device (PF & VF) to implement PASID capability
> > > before enabling the PASID support. But this assumption is incorrect. As
> > > per PCIe spec r4.0, sec 9.3.7.14, all VFs associated with PF can only
> > > use the PASID of the PF and not implement it.
> > >
> > > Also, since PASID is a shared resource between PF/VF, following rules
> > > should apply.
> > >
> > > 1. Use proper locking before accessing/modifying PF resources in VF
> > > PASID enable/disable call.
> > > 2. Use reference count logic to track the usage of PASID resource.
> > > 3. Disable PASID only if the PASID reference count (pasid_ref_cnt) is zero.
> > >
> > > Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Keith Busch <keith.busch@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Suggested-by: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/pci/ats.c | 113 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > > include/linux/pci.h | 2 +
> > > 2 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/ats.c b/drivers/pci/ats.c
> > > index 079dc5444444..9384afd7d00e 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/ats.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/ats.c
> > > @@ -402,6 +402,8 @@ void pci_pasid_init(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> > > if (pdev->is_virtfn)
> > > return;
> > >
> > > + mutex_init(&pdev->pasid_lock);
> > > +
> > > pos = pci_find_ext_capability(pdev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_PASID);
> > > if (!pos)
> > > return;
> > > @@ -436,32 +438,57 @@ void pci_pasid_init(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> > > int pci_enable_pasid(struct pci_dev *pdev, int features)
> > > {
> > > u16 control, supported;
> > > + int ret = 0;
> > > + struct pci_dev *pf = pci_physfn(pdev);
> > >
> > > - if (WARN_ON(pdev->pasid_enabled))
> > > - return -EBUSY;
> > > + mutex_lock(&pf->pasid_lock);
> > >
> > > - if (!pdev->eetlp_prefix_path)
> > > - return -EINVAL;
> > > + if (WARN_ON(pdev->pasid_enabled)) {
> > > + ret = -EBUSY;
> > > + goto pasid_unlock;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > - if (!pdev->pasid_cap)
> > > - return -EINVAL;
> > > + if (!pdev->eetlp_prefix_path) {
> > > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > > + goto pasid_unlock;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > - pci_read_config_word(pdev, pdev->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CAP,
> > > - &supported);
> > > + if (!pf->pasid_cap) {
> > > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > > + goto pasid_unlock;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (pdev->is_virtfn && pf->pasid_enabled)
> > > + goto update_status;
> > > +
> > > + pci_read_config_word(pf, pf->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CAP, &supported);
> > > supported &= PCI_PASID_CAP_EXEC | PCI_PASID_CAP_PRIV;
> > >
> > > /* User wants to enable anything unsupported? */
> > > - if ((supported & features) != features)
> > > - return -EINVAL;
> > > + if ((supported & features) != features) {
> > > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > > + goto pasid_unlock;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > control = PCI_PASID_CTRL_ENABLE | features;
> > > - pdev->pasid_features = features;
> > > -
> > > + pf->pasid_features = features;
> > > pci_write_config_word(pdev, pdev->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CTRL, control);
> > >
> > > - pdev->pasid_enabled = 1;
> > > + /*
> > > + * If PASID is not already enabled in PF, increment pasid_ref_cnt
> > > + * to count PF PASID usage.
> > > + */
> > > + if (pdev->is_virtfn && !pf->pasid_enabled) {
> > > + atomic_inc(&pf->pasid_ref_cnt);
> > > + pf->pasid_enabled = 1;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > - return 0;
> > > +update_status:
> > > + atomic_inc(&pf->pasid_ref_cnt);
> > > + pdev->pasid_enabled = 1;
> > > +pasid_unlock:
> > > + mutex_unlock(&pf->pasid_lock);
> > > + return ret;
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_enable_pasid);
> > >
> > > @@ -472,16 +499,29 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_enable_pasid);
> > > void pci_disable_pasid(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> > > {
> > > u16 control = 0;
> > > + struct pci_dev *pf = pci_physfn(pdev);
> > > +
> > > + mutex_lock(&pf->pasid_lock);
> > >
> > > if (WARN_ON(!pdev->pasid_enabled))
> > > - return;
> > > + goto pasid_unlock;
> > >
> > > - if (!pdev->pasid_cap)
> > > - return;
> > > + if (!pf->pasid_cap)
> > > + goto pasid_unlock;
> > >
> > > - pci_write_config_word(pdev, pdev->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CTRL, control);
> > > + atomic_dec(&pf->pasid_ref_cnt);
> > >
> > > + if (atomic_read(&pf->pasid_ref_cnt))
> > > + goto done;
> > > +
> > > + /* Disable PASID only if pasid_ref_cnt is zero */
> > > + pci_write_config_word(pf, pf->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CTRL, control);
> > > +
> > > +done:
> > > pdev->pasid_enabled = 0;
> > > +pasid_unlock:
> > > + mutex_unlock(&pf->pasid_lock);
> > > +
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_disable_pasid);
> > >
> > > @@ -492,15 +532,25 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_disable_pasid);
> > > void pci_restore_pasid_state(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> > > {
> > > u16 control;
> > > + struct pci_dev *pf = pci_physfn(pdev);
> > >
> > > if (!pdev->pasid_enabled)
> > > return;
> > >
> > > - if (!pdev->pasid_cap)
> > > + if (!pf->pasid_cap)
> > > return;
> > >
> > > + mutex_lock(&pf->pasid_lock);
> > > +
> > > + pci_read_config_word(pf, pf->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CTRL, &control);
> > > + if (control & PCI_PASID_CTRL_ENABLE)
> > > + goto pasid_unlock;
> > > +
> > > control = PCI_PASID_CTRL_ENABLE | pdev->pasid_features;
> > > - pci_write_config_word(pdev, pdev->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CTRL, control);
> > > + pci_write_config_word(pf, pf->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CTRL, control);
> > > +
> > > +pasid_unlock:
> > > + mutex_unlock(&pf->pasid_lock);
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_restore_pasid_state);
> > >
> > > @@ -517,15 +567,22 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_restore_pasid_state);
> > > int pci_pasid_features(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> > > {
> > > u16 supported;
> > > + struct pci_dev *pf = pci_physfn(pdev);
> > > +
> > > + mutex_lock(&pf->pasid_lock);
> > >
> > > - if (!pdev->pasid_cap)
> > > + if (!pf->pasid_cap) {
> > > + mutex_unlock(&pf->pasid_lock);
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > - pci_read_config_word(pdev, pdev->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CAP,
> > > + pci_read_config_word(pf, pf->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CAP,
> > > &supported);
> > >
> > > supported &= PCI_PASID_CAP_EXEC | PCI_PASID_CAP_PRIV;
> > >
> > > + mutex_unlock(&pf->pasid_lock);
> > > +
> > > return supported;
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_pasid_features);
> > > @@ -579,15 +636,21 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_prg_resp_pasid_required);
> > > int pci_max_pasids(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> > > {
> > > u16 supported;
> > > + struct pci_dev *pf = pci_physfn(pdev);
> > > +
> > > + mutex_lock(&pf->pasid_lock);
> > >
> > > - if (!pdev->pasid_cap)
> > > + if (!pf->pasid_cap) {
> > > + mutex_unlock(&pf->pasid_lock);
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > - pci_read_config_word(pdev, pdev->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CAP,
> > > - &supported);
> > > + pci_read_config_word(pf, pf->pasid_cap + PCI_PASID_CAP, &supported);
> > >
> > > supported = (supported & PASID_NUMBER_MASK) >> PASID_NUMBER_SHIFT;
> > >
> > > + mutex_unlock(&pf->pasid_lock);
> > > +
> > > return (1 << supported);
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_max_pasids);
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/pci.h b/include/linux/pci.h
> > > index 3c9c4c82be27..4bfcca045afd 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/pci.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/pci.h
> > > @@ -461,8 +461,10 @@ struct pci_dev {
> > > atomic_t pri_ref_cnt; /* Number of PF/VF PRI users */
> > > #endif
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_PASID
> > > + struct mutex pasid_lock; /* PASID enable lock */
> >
> > I think these locks are finer-grained than necessary. I'm not sure
> > it's worth having two mutexes for every device (one for PRI and
> > another for PASID). Is there really a performance benefit for having
> > two?
> Performance benefit should be minimal. But, PRI and PASID are functionally
> independent. So I don't think its correct to protect its resources with
> a common lock. Let me know your comments.
I'm not an expert on PRI and PASID, but if we can figure out a place
to put it and a way to manage it, I think it's OK to have a lock that
protects both. I'm thinking about the size of the pci_dev -- I'm not
sure the benefit of having two locks is commensurate with the size
cost.
> > Do it (or do they) need to be in struct pci_dev? You only use the PF
> > mutexes, so maybe it could be in the struct pci_sriov, which I think
> > is only one per PF.
> Its possible to move it to pci_sriov structure. But is that the right
> place for it? This lock is only used for protecting PRI and PASID feature
> updates and PRI/PASID are not dependent on IOV feature. Let me know your
> comments.
Hmm. I misunderstood the use of these. I had the impression they
were only used for PFs. If that were the case, pci_sriov might make
sense because we only allocate that for PFs (when we enable SR-IOV in
sriov_init()). But IIUC that's *not* the case: even non-SR-IOV
devices can use PRI/PASID; it's just that if a *VF* uses them, the VF
is actually using the PRI of the PF.
> If you want to move this lock to pci_sriov structure and use one lock
> for both PRI/PASID, then the implementation would look like following. We
> could create physfn lock/unlock functions in include/linux/pci.h similar
> to pci_physfn() function.
> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_IOV
> static inline void pci_physfn_reslock(struct pci_dev *dev)
> {
> struct pci_dev *pf = pci_physfn(dev);
>
> if (!pf->is_physfn)
> return;
>
> mutex_lock(&pf->sriov->reslock);
>
> }
> #else
> static inline void pci_physfn_reslock(struct pci_dev *dev) {};
> #endif
Yeah, that's not a pretty solution. IIUC, we don't need to lock at
all for non-SR-IOV devices, because we're operating on our own device
and nobody else should be touching it. Right?
Only the SR-IOV case (operating on a PF with SR-IOV enabled or on one
of its VFs) needs locking because these are all sharing one resource.
So it's kind of a shame to allocate the lock for *every* pci_dev, when
we only need it for PFs with SR-IOV enabled.
Bjorn
