On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 06:50:30PM +0300, Sergey Miroshnichenko wrote:
> On 10/16/19 1:14 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 03:59:25PM +0300, Sergey Miroshnichenko wrote:
> > > On 9/28/19 1:02 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > It's possible that a hot-add will trigger this attempt to move things
> > > > around, and it's possible that we won't find space for the new device
> > > > even if we move things around. But are we certain that every device
> > > > that worked *before* the hot-add will still work *afterwards*?
> > > >
> > > > Much of the assignment was probably done by the BIOS using different
> > > > algorithms than Linux has, so I think there's some chance that the
> > > > BIOS did a better job and if we lose that BIOS assignment, we might
> > > > not be able to recreate it.
> > >
> > > If a hardware has some special constraints on BAR assignment that the
> > > kernel is not aware of yet, the movable BARs may break things after a
> > > hotplug event. So the feature must be disabled there (manually) until
> > > the kernel get support for that special needs.
> >
> > I'm not talking about special constraints on BAR assignment. (I'm not
> > sure what those constraints would be -- AFAIK the constraints for a
> > spec-compliant device are all discoverable via the BAR size and type
> > (or the Enhanced Allocation capability)).
> >
> > What I'm concerned about is the case where we boot with a working
> > assignment, we hot-add a device, we move things around to try to
> > accommodate the new device, and not only do we fail to find resources
> > for the new device, we also fail to find a working assignment for the
> > devices that were present at boot. We've moved things around from
> > what BIOS did, and since we use a different algorithm than the BIOS,
> > there's no guarantee that we'll be able to find the assignment BIOS
> > did.
>
> If BAR assignment fails with a hot-added device, these patches will
> disable BARs for this device and retry, falling back to the situation
> where number of BARs and their size are the same as they were before
> the hotplug event.
>
> If all the BARs are immovable - they will just remain on their
> positions. Nothing to break here I guess.
>
> If almost all the BARs are immovable and there is one movable BAR,
> after releasing the bridge windows there will be a free gap - right
> where this movable BAR was. These patches are keeping the size of
> released BARs, not requesting the size from the devices again - so the
> device can't ask for a larger BAR. The space reserving is disabled by
> this patchset, so the kernel will request the same size for the bridge
> window containing this movable BAR. So there always will be a gap for
> this BAR - in the same location it was before.
>
> Based on these considerations I assume that the kernel is always able
> to arrange BARs from scratch if a BIOS was able to make it before.
>
> But! There is an implicit speculation that there will be the same
> amount of BARs after the fallback (which is equivalent to a PCI rescan
> triggered on unchanged topology). And two week ago I've found that
> this is not always true!
>
> I was testing on a "new" x86_64 PC, where BIOS doesn't reserve a space
> for SR-IOV BARs (of a network adapter). On the boot, the kernel wasn't
> arranging BARs itself - it took values written by the BIOS. And the
> bridge window was "jammed" between immovable BARs, so it can't expand.
> BARs of this device are also immovable, so the bridge window can't be
> moved away. During the PCI rescan, the kernel tried to allocate both
> "regular" and SR-IOV BARs - and failed. Even without changes in the
> PCI topology.
>
> So in the next version of this series there will be one more patch,
> that allows the kernel to ignore BIOS's setting for the "safe" (non-IO
> and non-VGA) BARs, so these BARs will be arranged kernel-way - and
> also those forgotten by the BIOS.
This still seems a little scary, so I'll probably ask about it again :)
> After modifying the code as you advised, it became possible to mark
> only some BARs of the device as immovable. So the code is less ugly
> now, and it also works for drivers/video/fbdev/efifb.c , which uses
> the BAR in a weird way (dev->driver is NULL, but not the res->child):
>
> static bool pci_dev_movable(struct pci_dev *dev,
> bool res_has_children)
> {
> if (!pci_can_move_bars)
> return false;
>
> if (dev->driver && dev->driver->rescan_prepare)
> return true;
>
> if (!dev->driver && !res_has_children)
> return true;
>
> return false;
> }
>
> bool pci_dev_bar_movable(struct pci_dev *dev, struct resource *res)
> {
> if (res->flags & IORESOURCE_PCI_FIXED)
> return false;
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86
> /* Workaround for the legacy VGA memory 0xa0000-0xbffff */
> if (res->start == 0xa0000)
Nit here; "res->start" is the CPU address, but what you need to check
is the PCI bus address, e.g., something from pcibios_resource_to_bus().
And this is not x86-specific. 0xa0000 is magic on PCI no matter what
the processor architecture.
> return false;
> #endif
>
> return pci_dev_movable(dev, res->child);
> }
