Message-Id: <200901152005.25370.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:05:24 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] PCI PCIe portdrv: Fix allocation of interrupts

On Thursday 15 January 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday 15 January 2009, Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
> > Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
> > > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday 14 January 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday 14 January 2009, Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > >>>> I'm sorry but I don't understand what the problem is.
> > >>>> Do you mean pci_disable_msix() doesn't work on some platforms?
> > >>> No, I don't.  It was just confusion on my side, sorry.
> > >>>
> > >>> Please have a look at the new version of the patch I sent yesterday
> > >>> (http://marc.info/?l=linux-pci&m=123185510828181&w=4).
> > >> BTW, in your patch the first dummy pci_enable_msix() allocates just one
> > >> vector, which means that the contents of both
> > >> msix_entries[idx_hppme].entry and msix_entries[idx_aer].entry will be the same,
> > >> if my reading of the spec (PCI 3.0 in this case) is correct.
> > > 
> > > According to PCI 3.0 implementation note "Handling MSI-X Vector Shortage,"
> > > it seems your reading is not correct.
> > > 
> > > Assume that the port have 4 entries([0-3]) in MSI-X table, and that entry[2]
> > > for hotplug/PME and entry[3] for AER, and that kernel only allocates 2 vector.
> > > Spec says that the port could be designed for software to configure entries
> > > assigning vectors{A,B} to multiple entries as ABAB, AABB, ABBB etc. 
> > > 
> > > So if there is just one vector, it could be AAAA.
> 
> Our pci_enable_msix() doesn't do that.  It will always do A---.
> 
> > BTW, I don't think pci_enable_msix() allows this kind of configuration.
> > With the dummy pci_enable_msix() in my patch, it would be A---, I think.
> 
> And that exactly is why I'm not sure it's correct.
> 
> Namely, if only the first entry is configured, the device is only able to use
> one vector, represented by this entry, for any purpose.  Now, for instance, for
> PCIE_CAPABILITIES_REG, there are two possibilities:
> (1) the value in the register always points to the _valid_ entry in the MSI-X
>     table and that would be the first one,
> (2) the value in the register may point to an _invalid_ entry (1 - 3).
> 
> You seem to assume that (2) is the case, but I'm not sure (that should follow
> from the PCI Express spec, but it clearly doesn't, at least I couldn't find
> any pointer in the spec).  IMO it wouldn't make sense, because the port
> wouldn't have been able to generate interrupts for this service if only one
> vector had been configured.
> 
> Still, even though (2) is the case, but both PCIE_CAPABILITIES_REG and
> PCI_ERR_ROOT_STATUS just happen to point to the same entry, which very well may
> be possible, the second pci_enable_msix() in your patch will fail.
> 
> In any case, I think we should
> (a) get the number of the port's MSI-X table entries _first_, without enabling
>     MSI-X,
> (b) allocate as many MSI-X vectors as indicated by this number, even though
>     some of them may not be used,
> (c) use PCIE_CAPABILITIES_REG and PCI_ERR_ROOT_STATUS to check
>     which vector has been allocated to which service.

(d) mask the unused vectors.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists