| Message ID | 1372691432-6440-5-git-send-email-weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Delegated to: | Bjorn Helgaas |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Wei Yang <weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > In commit 462d9303 ("PCI: Align P2P windows using pcibios_window_alignment()"), > it introduce a new method to calculate the window alignment of P2P bridge. > > When the io_window_1k is set, the calculation for the io resource alignment > is different from the original one. In the original logic before 462d9303, > the alignment is no bigger than 4K even the io_window_1k is set. The logic > introduced in 462d9303 will limit the alignment to 1k in this case. > > This patch fix this issue. > > Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <shangw@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Reviewed-by: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com> > --- > drivers/pci/setup-bus.c | 4 ++++ > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c > index bd0ce39d..5c60ca0 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c > @@ -755,6 +755,10 @@ static void pbus_size_io(struct pci_bus *bus, resource_size_t min_size, > return; > > io_align = min_align = window_alignment(bus, IORESOURCE_IO); > + /* Don't exceed 4KiB for windows requesting 1KiB alignment */ > + if (bus->self->io_window_1k && io_align == PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN_1K) > + io_align = PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN; Please explain why we need this change, with some actual values that show the problem. We need to know what the problem is, not merely that the code behaves differently than it did before 462d9303. It appears to me that this change will break the ability to use 1K windows. For example, assume a bridge that supports 1K windows. Assume we're using the default pcibios_window_alignment(). Currently window_alignment() on the secondary bus returns PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN_1K (0x400, which is 1K), so io_align = 0x400. With your change, I think io_align will be bumped back up to 4K in this case, so we'll lose the ability to allocate a 1K window. > list_for_each_entry(dev, &bus->devices, bus_list) { > int i; > > -- > 1.7.5.4 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 03:15:13PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Wei Yang <weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> In commit 462d9303 ("PCI: Align P2P windows using pcibios_window_alignment()"), >> it introduce a new method to calculate the window alignment of P2P bridge. >> >> When the io_window_1k is set, the calculation for the io resource alignment >> is different from the original one. In the original logic before 462d9303, >> the alignment is no bigger than 4K even the io_window_1k is set. The logic >> introduced in 462d9303 will limit the alignment to 1k in this case. >> >> This patch fix this issue. >> >> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <shangw@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> Reviewed-by: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com> >> --- >> drivers/pci/setup-bus.c | 4 ++++ >> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c >> index bd0ce39d..5c60ca0 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c >> +++ b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c >> @@ -755,6 +755,10 @@ static void pbus_size_io(struct pci_bus *bus, resource_size_t min_size, >> return; >> >> io_align = min_align = window_alignment(bus, IORESOURCE_IO); >> + /* Don't exceed 4KiB for windows requesting 1KiB alignment */ >> + if (bus->self->io_window_1k && io_align == PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN_1K) >> + io_align = PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN; > >Please explain why we need this change, with some actual values that >show the problem. We need to know what the problem is, not merely >that the code behaves differently than it did before 462d9303. Yep, sorry for not listing the exact problem value. Assume: 1. pcibios_window_alignment() return 1. 2. window_alignment() return PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN_1K. 3. one of the child device has an IO resource with size of 2K. Result comparison: Before 462d9303 After 462d9303 min_align 1k 1k | after loop | V min_align 2k 2k | check boundary | V min_align 2k 1k In this case, with 462d9303 the min_align will be set back to 1k even one of the child require 2k alignment. > >It appears to me that this change will break the ability to use 1K >windows. For example, assume a bridge that supports 1K windows. >Assume we're using the default pcibios_window_alignment(). Currently >window_alignment() on the secondary bus returns >PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN_1K (0x400, which is 1K), so io_align = 0x400. > >With your change, I think io_align will be bumped back up to 4K in >this case, so we'll lose the ability to allocate a 1K window. After applying the change: Assume: 1. pcibios_window_alignment() return 1. 2. window_alignment() return PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN_1K. 3. one of the child device has an IO resource with size of 2K. Result comparison: with 462d9303 with this patch min_align 1k 1k io_align 1k 4k | after loop | V min_align 2k 2k io_align 1k 4k | check boundary | V min_align 1k 2k io_align 1k 1k With this patch, in the same case as above, the min_align is 2k after calculation. In my mind, the min_align is the lower bound, io_align is the upper bound. The final result of min_align should be in this range. Is my understanding correct? or I missed something important? > >> list_for_each_entry(dev, &bus->devices, bus_list) { >> int i; >> >> -- >> 1.7.5.4 >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >-- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Wei Yang <weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 03:15:13PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >>On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Wei Yang <weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >>> In commit 462d9303 ("PCI: Align P2P windows using pcibios_window_alignment()"), >>> it introduce a new method to calculate the window alignment of P2P bridge. >>> >>> When the io_window_1k is set, the calculation for the io resource alignment >>> is different from the original one. In the original logic before 462d9303, >>> the alignment is no bigger than 4K even the io_window_1k is set. The logic >>> introduced in 462d9303 will limit the alignment to 1k in this case. >>> >>> This patch fix this issue. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>> Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <shangw@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>> Reviewed-by: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/pci/setup-bus.c | 4 ++++ >>> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c >>> index bd0ce39d..5c60ca0 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c >>> +++ b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c >>> @@ -755,6 +755,10 @@ static void pbus_size_io(struct pci_bus *bus, resource_size_t min_size, >>> return; >>> >>> io_align = min_align = window_alignment(bus, IORESOURCE_IO); >>> + /* Don't exceed 4KiB for windows requesting 1KiB alignment */ >>> + if (bus->self->io_window_1k && io_align == PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN_1K) >>> + io_align = PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN; >> >>Please explain why we need this change, with some actual values that >>show the problem. We need to know what the problem is, not merely >>that the code behaves differently than it did before 462d9303. > > Yep, sorry for not listing the exact problem value. > > Assume: > 1. pcibios_window_alignment() return 1. > 2. window_alignment() return PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN_1K. > 3. one of the child device has an IO resource with size of 2K. > > Result comparison: > > Before 462d9303 After 462d9303 > min_align 1k 1k > | > after loop | > V > min_align 2k 2k > | > check boundary | > V > min_align 2k 1k > > In this case, with 462d9303 the min_align will be set back to 1k even one of > the child require 2k alignment. > >> >>It appears to me that this change will break the ability to use 1K >>windows. For example, assume a bridge that supports 1K windows. >>Assume we're using the default pcibios_window_alignment(). Currently >>window_alignment() on the secondary bus returns >>PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN_1K (0x400, which is 1K), so io_align = 0x400. >> >>With your change, I think io_align will be bumped back up to 4K in >>this case, so we'll lose the ability to allocate a 1K window. > > After applying the change: > > Assume: > 1. pcibios_window_alignment() return 1. > 2. window_alignment() return PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN_1K. > 3. one of the child device has an IO resource with size of 2K. What happens if no child has an I/O resource larger than 1K? Can we allocate a 1K window with 1K alignment in that case? > Result comparison: > > with 462d9303 with this patch > min_align 1k 1k > io_align 1k 4k > | > after loop | > V > min_align 2k 2k > io_align 1k 4k > | > check boundary | > V > min_align 1k 2k > io_align 1k 1k > > With this patch, in the same case as above, the min_align is 2k after > calculation. > > In my mind, the min_align is the lower bound, io_align is the upper bound. The > final result of min_align should be in this range. > > Is my understanding correct? or I missed something important? > >> >>> list_for_each_entry(dev, &bus->devices, bus_list) { >>> int i; >>> >>> -- >>> 1.7.5.4 >>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>-- >>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in >>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > -- > Richard Yang > Help you, Help me > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 11:38:06AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Wei Yang <weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 03:15:13PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >>>On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Wei Yang <weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >>>> In commit 462d9303 ("PCI: Align P2P windows using pcibios_window_alignment()"), >>>> it introduce a new method to calculate the window alignment of P2P bridge. >>>> >>>> When the io_window_1k is set, the calculation for the io resource alignment >>>> is different from the original one. In the original logic before 462d9303, >>>> the alignment is no bigger than 4K even the io_window_1k is set. The logic >>>> introduced in 462d9303 will limit the alignment to 1k in this case. >>>> >>>> This patch fix this issue. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>>> Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <shangw@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>>> Reviewed-by: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/pci/setup-bus.c | 4 ++++ >>>> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c >>>> index bd0ce39d..5c60ca0 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c >>>> @@ -755,6 +755,10 @@ static void pbus_size_io(struct pci_bus *bus, resource_size_t min_size, >>>> return; >>>> >>>> io_align = min_align = window_alignment(bus, IORESOURCE_IO); >>>> + /* Don't exceed 4KiB for windows requesting 1KiB alignment */ >>>> + if (bus->self->io_window_1k && io_align == PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN_1K) >>>> + io_align = PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN; >>> >>>Please explain why we need this change, with some actual values that >>>show the problem. We need to know what the problem is, not merely >>>that the code behaves differently than it did before 462d9303. >> >> Yep, sorry for not listing the exact problem value. >> >> Assume: >> 1. pcibios_window_alignment() return 1. >> 2. window_alignment() return PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN_1K. >> 3. one of the child device has an IO resource with size of 2K. >> >> Result comparison: >> >> Before 462d9303 After 462d9303 >> min_align 1k 1k >> | >> after loop | >> V >> min_align 2k 2k >> | >> check boundary | >> V >> min_align 2k 1k >> >> In this case, with 462d9303 the min_align will be set back to 1k even one of >> the child require 2k alignment. >> >>> >>>It appears to me that this change will break the ability to use 1K >>>windows. For example, assume a bridge that supports 1K windows. >>>Assume we're using the default pcibios_window_alignment(). Currently >>>window_alignment() on the secondary bus returns >>>PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN_1K (0x400, which is 1K), so io_align = 0x400. >>> >>>With your change, I think io_align will be bumped back up to 4K in >>>this case, so we'll lose the ability to allocate a 1K window. >> >> After applying the change: >> >> Assume: >> 1. pcibios_window_alignment() return 1. >> 2. window_alignment() return PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN_1K. >> 3. one of the child device has an IO resource with size of 2K. > >What happens if no child has an I/O resource larger than 1K? Can we >allocate a 1K window with 1K alignment in that case? > Yes, it could. The result comparison would look like this. Since no child has an I/O resource larger than 1k, the min_align will remain 1k after loop. And because io_align(4K) is larger than min_align(1k), the final min_align would be 1k. In this case, the code from commit 462d9303 and my patch both works. Result comparison: with 462d9303 with this patch min_align 1k 1k io_align 1k 4k | after loop | V min_align 1k 1k io_align 1k 4k | check boundary | V min_align 1k 1k io_align 1k 4k >> Result comparison: >> >> with 462d9303 with this patch >> min_align 1k 1k >> io_align 1k 4k >> | >> after loop | >> V >> min_align 2k 2k >> io_align 1k 4k >> | >> check boundary | >> V >> min_align 1k 2k >> io_align 1k 4k >> >> With this patch, in the same case as above, the min_align is 2k after >> calculation. >> >> In my mind, the min_align is the lower bound, io_align is the upper bound. The >> final result of min_align should be in this range. >> >> Is my understanding correct? or I missed something important? >> >>> >>>> list_for_each_entry(dev, &bus->devices, bus_list) { >>>> int i; >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 1.7.5.4 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in >>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>>-- >>>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in >>>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> >> -- >> Richard Yang >> Help you, Help me >> >-- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 09:34:42AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 11:38:06AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >>On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Wei Yang <weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 03:15:13PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >>>>On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Wei Yang <weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >>>>> In commit 462d9303 ("PCI: Align P2P windows using pcibios_window_alignment()"), >>>>> it introduce a new method to calculate the window alignment of P2P bridge. >>>>> >>>>> When the io_window_1k is set, the calculation for the io resource alignment >>>>> is different from the original one. In the original logic before 462d9303, >>>>> the alignment is no bigger than 4K even the io_window_1k is set. The logic >>>>> introduced in 462d9303 will limit the alignment to 1k in this case. >>>>> >>>>> This patch fix this issue. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <shangw@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/pci/setup-bus.c | 4 ++++ >>>>> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c >>>>> index bd0ce39d..5c60ca0 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c >>>>> @@ -755,6 +755,10 @@ static void pbus_size_io(struct pci_bus *bus, resource_size_t min_size, >>>>> return; >>>>> >>>>> io_align = min_align = window_alignment(bus, IORESOURCE_IO); >>>>> + /* Don't exceed 4KiB for windows requesting 1KiB alignment */ >>>>> + if (bus->self->io_window_1k && io_align == PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN_1K) >>>>> + io_align = PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN; >>>> >>>>Please explain why we need this change, with some actual values that >>>>show the problem. We need to know what the problem is, not merely >>>>that the code behaves differently than it did before 462d9303. >>> >>> Yep, sorry for not listing the exact problem value. >>> >>> Assume: >>> 1. pcibios_window_alignment() return 1. >>> 2. window_alignment() return PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN_1K. >>> 3. one of the child device has an IO resource with size of 2K. >>> >>> Result comparison: >>> >>> Before 462d9303 After 462d9303 >>> min_align 1k 1k >>> | >>> after loop | >>> V >>> min_align 2k 2k >>> | >>> check boundary | >>> V >>> min_align 2k 1k >>> >>> In this case, with 462d9303 the min_align will be set back to 1k even one of >>> the child require 2k alignment. >>> >>>> >>>>It appears to me that this change will break the ability to use 1K >>>>windows. For example, assume a bridge that supports 1K windows. >>>>Assume we're using the default pcibios_window_alignment(). Currently >>>>window_alignment() on the secondary bus returns >>>>PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN_1K (0x400, which is 1K), so io_align = 0x400. >>>> >>>>With your change, I think io_align will be bumped back up to 4K in >>>>this case, so we'll lose the ability to allocate a 1K window. >>> >>> After applying the change: >>> >>> Assume: >>> 1. pcibios_window_alignment() return 1. >>> 2. window_alignment() return PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN_1K. >>> 3. one of the child device has an IO resource with size of 2K. >> >>What happens if no child has an I/O resource larger than 1K? Can we >>allocate a 1K window with 1K alignment in that case? >> > >Yes, it could. The result comparison would look like this. >Since no child has an I/O resource larger than 1k, the min_align will remain >1k after loop. And because io_align(4K) is larger than min_align(1k), the >final min_align would be 1k. > >In this case, the code from commit 462d9303 and my patch both works. > > Result comparison: > with 462d9303 with this patch > min_align 1k 1k > io_align 1k 4k > | > after loop | > V > min_align 1k 1k > io_align 1k 4k > | > check boundary | > V > min_align 1k 1k > io_align 1k 4k > Bjorn, Sorry for distubing you again. Is my analysis correct or I still miss some point? >>> Result comparison: >>> >>> with 462d9303 with this patch >>> min_align 1k 1k >>> io_align 1k 4k >>> | >>> after loop | >>> V >>> min_align 2k 2k >>> io_align 1k 4k >>> | >>> check boundary | >>> V >>> min_align 1k 2k >>> io_align 1k 4k >>> >>> With this patch, in the same case as above, the min_align is 2k after >>> calculation. >>> >>> In my mind, the min_align is the lower bound, io_align is the upper bound. The >>> final result of min_align should be in this range. >>> >>> Is my understanding correct? or I missed something important? >>> >>>> >>>>> list_for_each_entry(dev, &bus->devices, bus_list) { >>>>> int i; >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 1.7.5.4 >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in >>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>>>-- >>>>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in >>>>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>>>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >>> -- >>> Richard Yang >>> Help you, Help me >>> >>-- >>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in >>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > >-- >Richard Yang >Help you, Help me
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 09:34:42AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 11:38:06AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Wei Yang <weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 03:15:13PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >>>On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Wei Yang <weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >>>> In commit 462d9303 ("PCI: Align P2P windows using pcibios_window_alignment()"), > >>>> it introduce a new method to calculate the window alignment of P2P bridge. > >>>> > >>>> When the io_window_1k is set, the calculation for the io resource alignment > >>>> is different from the original one. In the original logic before 462d9303, > >>>> the alignment is no bigger than 4K even the io_window_1k is set. The logic > >>>> introduced in 462d9303 will limit the alignment to 1k in this case. > >>>> > >>>> This patch fix this issue. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > >>>> Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <shangw@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > >>>> Reviewed-by: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> drivers/pci/setup-bus.c | 4 ++++ > >>>> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c > >>>> index bd0ce39d..5c60ca0 100644 > >>>> --- a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c > >>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c > >>>> @@ -755,6 +755,10 @@ static void pbus_size_io(struct pci_bus *bus, resource_size_t min_size, > >>>> return; > >>>> > >>>> io_align = min_align = window_alignment(bus, IORESOURCE_IO); > >>>> + /* Don't exceed 4KiB for windows requesting 1KiB alignment */ > >>>> + if (bus->self->io_window_1k && io_align == PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN_1K) > >>>> + io_align = PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN; > >>> > >>>Please explain why we need this change, with some actual values that > >>>show the problem. We need to know what the problem is, not merely > >>>that the code behaves differently than it did before 462d9303. > >> > >> Yep, sorry for not listing the exact problem value. > >> > >> Assume: > >> 1. pcibios_window_alignment() return 1. > >> 2. window_alignment() return PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN_1K. > >> 3. one of the child device has an IO resource with size of 2K. > >> > >> Result comparison: > >> > >> Before 462d9303 After 462d9303 > >> min_align 1k 1k > >> | > >> after loop | > >> V > >> min_align 2k 2k > >> | > >> check boundary | > >> V > >> min_align 2k 1k > >> > >> In this case, with 462d9303 the min_align will be set back to 1k even one of > >> the child require 2k alignment. > >> > >>> > >>>It appears to me that this change will break the ability to use 1K > >>>windows. For example, assume a bridge that supports 1K windows. > >>>Assume we're using the default pcibios_window_alignment(). Currently > >>>window_alignment() on the secondary bus returns > >>>PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN_1K (0x400, which is 1K), so io_align = 0x400. > >>> > >>>With your change, I think io_align will be bumped back up to 4K in > >>>this case, so we'll lose the ability to allocate a 1K window. > >> > >> After applying the change: > >> > >> Assume: > >> 1. pcibios_window_alignment() return 1. > >> 2. window_alignment() return PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN_1K. > >> 3. one of the child device has an IO resource with size of 2K. > > > >What happens if no child has an I/O resource larger than 1K? Can we > >allocate a 1K window with 1K alignment in that case? > > > > Yes, it could. The result comparison would look like this. > Since no child has an I/O resource larger than 1k, the min_align will remain > 1k after loop. And because io_align(4K) is larger than min_align(1k), the > final min_align would be 1k. > > In this case, the code from commit 462d9303 and my patch both works. > > Result comparison: > with 462d9303 with this patch > min_align 1k 1k > io_align 1k 4k > | > after loop | > V > min_align 1k 1k > io_align 1k 4k > | > check boundary | > V > min_align 1k 1k > io_align 1k 4k > > >> Result comparison: > >> > >> with 462d9303 with this patch > >> min_align 1k 1k > >> io_align 1k 4k > >> | > >> after loop | > >> V > >> min_align 2k 2k > >> io_align 1k 4k > >> | > >> check boundary | > >> V > >> min_align 1k 2k > >> io_align 1k 4k > >> > >> With this patch, in the same case as above, the min_align is 2k after > >> calculation. > >> > >> In my mind, the min_align is the lower bound, io_align is the upper bound. The > >> final result of min_align should be in this range. > >> > >> Is my understanding correct? or I missed something important? Since Gavin has reviewed this, I'm OK with it. If you resend the series with the updated changelogs and so on, I'll apply it. Bjorn > >> > >>> > >>>> list_for_each_entry(dev, &bus->devices, bus_list) { > >>>> int i; > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> 1.7.5.4 > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in > >>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > >>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > >>>-- > >>>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in > >>>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > >>>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > >> > >> -- > >> Richard Yang > >> Help you, Help me > >> > >-- > >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in > >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > -- > Richard Yang > Help you, Help me > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c index bd0ce39d..5c60ca0 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c +++ b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c @@ -755,6 +755,10 @@ static void pbus_size_io(struct pci_bus *bus, resource_size_t min_size, return; io_align = min_align = window_alignment(bus, IORESOURCE_IO); + /* Don't exceed 4KiB for windows requesting 1KiB alignment */ + if (bus->self->io_window_1k && io_align == PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN_1K) + io_align = PCI_P2P_DEFAULT_IO_ALIGN; + list_for_each_entry(dev, &bus->devices, bus_list) { int i;
In commit 462d9303 ("PCI: Align P2P windows using pcibios_window_alignment()"), it introduce a new method to calculate the window alignment of P2P bridge. When the io_window_1k is set, the calculation for the io resource alignment is different from the original one. In the original logic before 462d9303, the alignment is no bigger than 4K even the io_window_1k is set. The logic introduced in 462d9303 will limit the alignment to 1k in this case. This patch fix this issue. Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <shangw@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com> --- drivers/pci/setup-bus.c | 4 ++++ 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)