Message-ID: <53A9A6CC.6050501@ozlabs.ru>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2014 02:26:52 +1000
From:	Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>
To:	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
CC:	Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfio: Fix endianness handling for emulated BARs

On 06/25/2014 12:43 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 00:33 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> On 06/25/2014 12:21 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 15:22 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>> On 24.06.14 15:01, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>>>> On 06/24/2014 10:52 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>>> On 24.06.14 14:50, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>>>>>> On 06/24/2014 08:41 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 24.06.14 12:11, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 06/21/2014 09:12 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 21:21 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Working on big endian being an accident may be a matter of perspective
>>>>>>>>>>     :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The comment remains that this patch doesn't actually fix anything except
>>>>>>>>>>> the overhead on big endian systems doing redundant byte swapping and
>>>>>>>>>>> maybe the philosophy that vfio regions are little endian.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that works by accident because technically VFIO is a transport and
>>>>>>>>>> thus shouldn't perform any endian swapping of any sort, which remains
>>>>>>>>>> the responsibility of the end driver which is the only one to know
>>>>>>>>>> whether a given BAR location is a a register or some streaming data
>>>>>>>>>> and in the former case whether it's LE or BE (some PCI devices are BE
>>>>>>>>>> even ! :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But yes, in the end, it works with the dual "cancelling" swaps and the
>>>>>>>>>> overhead of those swaps is probably drowned in the noise of the syscall
>>>>>>>>>> overhead.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm still not a fan of iowrite vs iowritebe, there must be something we
>>>>>>>>>>> can use that doesn't have an implicit swap.
>>>>>>>>>> Sadly there isn't ... In the old day we didn't even have the "be"
>>>>>>>>>> variant and readl/writel style accessors still don't have them either
>>>>>>>>>> for all archs.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is __raw_readl/writel but here the semantics are much more than
>>>>>>>>>> just "don't swap", they also don't have memory barriers (which means
>>>>>>>>>> they are essentially useless to most drivers unless those are platform
>>>>>>>>>> specific drivers which know exactly what they are doing, or in the rare
>>>>>>>>>> cases such as accessing a framebuffer which we know never have side
>>>>>>>>>> effects).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     Calling it iowrite*_native is also an abuse of the namespace.
>>>>>>>>>>>     Next thing we know some common code
>>>>>>>>>>> will legitimately use that name.
>>>>>>>>>> I might make sense to those definitions into a common header. There have
>>>>>>>>>> been a handful of cases in the past that wanted that sort of "native
>>>>>>>>>> byte order" MMIOs iirc (though don't ask me for examples, I can't really
>>>>>>>>>> remember).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     If we do need to define an alias
>>>>>>>>>>> (which I'd like to avoid) it should be something like vfio_iowrite32.
>>>>>>>>> Ping?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We need to make a decision whether to move those xxx_native() helpers
>>>>>>>>> somewhere (where?) or leave the patch as is (as we figured out that
>>>>>>>>> iowriteXX functions implement barriers and we cannot just use raw
>>>>>>>>> accessors) and fix commit log to explain everything.
>>>>>>>> Is there actually any difference in generated code with this patch applied
>>>>>>>> and without? I would hope that iowrite..() is inlined and cancels out the
>>>>>>>> cpu_to_le..() calls that are also inlined?
>>>>>>> iowrite32 is a non-inline function so conversions take place so are the
>>>>>>> others. And sorry but I fail to see why this matters. We are not trying to
>>>>>>> accelerate things, we are removing redundant operations which confuse
>>>>>>> people who read the code.
>>>>>> The confusion depends on where you're coming from. If you happen to know
>>>>>> that "iowrite32" writes in LE, then the LE conversion makes a lot of sense.
>>>>> It was like this (and this is just confusing):
>>>>>
>>>>> iowrite32(le32_to_cpu(val), io + off);
>>>>>
>>>>> What would make sense (according to you and I would understand this) is this:
>>>>>
>>>>> iowrite32(cpu_to_le32(val), io + off);
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or I missed your point, did I?
>>>>
>>>> No, you didn't miss it. I think for people who know how iowrite32() 
>>>> works the above is obvious. I find the fact that iowrite32() writes in 
>>>> LE always pretty scary though ;).
>>>>
>>>> So IMHO we should either create new, generic iowrite helpers that don't 
>>>> do any endian swapping at all or do iowrite32(cpu_to_le32(val)) calls.
>>>
>>> I'm one of those people for whom iowrite32(le32_to_cpu(val)) makes sense
>>
>>
>> I do not understand why @val is considered LE here and need to be converted
>> to CPU. Really. I truly believe it should be cpu_to_le32().
> 
> Because iowrite32 is defined to take a cpu byte order value and write it
> as little endian.


Ok, then neither le32_to_cpu() nor cpu_to_le32() should be there at all, if
we are talking about not scratching anyone's head :)



>>> and keeps the byte order consistent regardless of the platform, while
>>> iowrite32(val) or iowrite32be(val) makes me scratch my head and try to
>>> remember that the byte swaps are a nop on the given platforms.  As Ben
>>> noted, a native, no-swap ioread/write doesn't exist, but perhaps should.
>>> I'd prefer an attempt be made to make it exist before adding
>>> vfio-specific macros.  vfio is arguably doing the right thing here given
>>> the functions available.  Thanks,


I do not mind to make that atempt but what exactly would make sense here?
Try moving macros to include/asm-generic/io.h? Something else? Thanks.



-- 
Alexey
--
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