[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56AF1C69.20108@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 16:50:49 +0800
From: Yongji Xie <xyjxie@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Cc: bhelgaas@...gle.com, corbet@....net, aik@...abs.ru,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org, mpe@...erman.id.au,
warrier@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/5] PCI: Add support for enforcing all MMIO BARs
to be page aligned
On 2016/1/30 3:01, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-01-29 at 18:37 +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
>> On 2016/1/29 6:46, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 15:06 +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
>>>> When vfio passthrough a PCI device of which MMIO BARs
>>>> are smaller than PAGE_SIZE, guest will not handle the
>>>> mmio accesses to the BARs which leads to mmio emulations
>>>> in host.
>>>>
>>>> This is because vfio will not allow to passthrough one
>>>> BAR's mmio page which may be shared with other BARs.
>>>>
>>>> To solve this performance issue, this patch adds a kernel
>>>> parameter "pci=resource_page_aligned=on" to enforce
>>>> the alignment of all MMIO BARs to be at least PAGE_SIZE,
>>>> so that one BAR's mmio page would not be shared with other
>>>> BARs. We can also disable it through kernel parameter
>>>> "pci=resource_page_aligned=off".
>>>>
>>>> For the default value of the parameter, we think it should be
>>>> arch-independent, so we add a macro
>>>> HAVE_PCI_DEFAULT_RESOURCES_PAGE_ALIGNED to change it. And we
>>>> define this macro to enable this parameter by default on PPC64
>>>> platform which can easily hit this performance issue because
>>>> its PAGE_SIZE is 64KB.
>>>>
>>>> Note that the kernel parameter won't works if kernel doesn't do
>>>> resources reallocation.
>>> And where do you account for this so that we know whether it's really in
>>> effect?
>>
>> We can check the flag PCI_PROBE_ONLY to know whether kernel do
>> resources reallocation. Then we know if the kernel parameter is really
>> in effect.
>>
>> enum {
>> /* Force re-assigning all resources (ignore firmware
>> * setup completely)
>> */
>> PCI_REASSIGN_ALL_RSRC = 0x00000001,
>>
>> /* Re-assign all bus numbers */
>> PCI_REASSIGN_ALL_BUS = 0x00000002,
>>
>> /* Do not try to assign, just use existing setup */
>> ---> PCI_PROBE_ONLY = 0x00000004,
>>
>> And I will add this to commit log.
> We need more than a commit log entry for this, what's the purpose of the
> pci_resources_share_page() function if we don't know if this is in
> effect?
It seems the parameter will be always in effect if we reuse the
re-aligning code
of parameter "resource_alignment=" in pci_reassigndev_resource_alignment().
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yongji Xie <xyjxie@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | 5 +++++
>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci.h | 11 +++++++++++
>>>> drivers/pci/pci.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> drivers/pci/pci.h | 8 +++++++-
>>>> include/linux/pci.h | 4 ++++
>>>> 5 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
>>>> index 742f69d..3f2a7c9 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
>>>> @@ -2857,6 +2857,11 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be entirely omitted.
>>>> PAGE_SIZE is used as alignment.
>>>> PCI-PCI bridge can be specified, if resource
>>>> windows need to be expanded.
>>>> + resource_page_aligned= Enable/disable enforcing the alignment
>>>> + of all PCI devices' memory resources to be
>>>> + at least PAGE_SIZE if resources reallocation
>>>> + is done by kernel.
>>>> + Format: { "on" | "off" }
>>>> ecrc= Enable/disable PCIe ECRC (transaction layer
>>>> end-to-end CRC checking).
>>>> bios: Use BIOS/firmware settings. This is the
>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci.h
>>>> index 3453bd8..2d2b3ef 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci.h
>>>> @@ -136,6 +136,17 @@ extern pgprot_t pci_phys_mem_access_prot(struct file *file,
>>>> unsigned long pfn,
>>>> unsigned long size,
>>>> pgprot_t prot);
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC64
>>>> +
>>>> +/* For PPC64, We enforce all PCI MMIO BARs to be page aligned
>>>> + * by default. This would be helpful to improve performance
>>>> + * when we passthrough a PCI device of which BARs are smaller
>>>> + * than PAGE_SIZE(64KB). And we can use kernel parameter
>>>> + * "pci=resource_page_aligned=off" to disable it.
>>>> + */
>>>> +#define HAVE_PCI_DEFAULT_RESOURCES_PAGE_ALIGNED 1
>>>> +
>>>> +#endif
>>>>
>>>> #define HAVE_ARCH_PCI_RESOURCE_TO_USER
>>>> extern void pci_resource_to_user(const struct pci_dev *dev, int bar,
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
>>>> index 314db8c..7b21238 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
>>>> @@ -99,6 +99,9 @@ u8 pci_cache_line_size;
>>>> */
>>>> unsigned int pcibios_max_latency = 255;
>>>>
>>>> +bool pci_resources_page_aligned =
>>>> + IS_ENABLED(HAVE_PCI_DEFAULT_RESOURCES_PAGE_ALIGNED);
>>> I don't think this is proper use of IS_ENABLED, which seems to be
>>> targeted at CONFIG_ type options. You could define this as that in an
>>> arch Kconfig.
>>
>> Is it better that we define this as a pci Kconfig and select it in arch
>> Kconfig?
> If you want to use IS_ENABLE here, I would think so.
Actually, I'm not sure if it's necessary to add a Kconfig option for it.
I prefer to do it like previous version:
#ifdef HAVE_PCI_DEFAULT_RESOURCES_PAGE_ALIGNED
bool pci_resources_page_aligned = true;
#else
bool pci_resources_page_aligned;
#endif
>>>> +
>>>> /* If set, the PCIe ARI capability will not be used. */
>>>> static bool pcie_ari_disabled;
>>>>
>>>> @@ -4746,6 +4749,35 @@ static ssize_t pci_resource_alignment_store(struct bus_type *bus,
>>>> BUS_ATTR(resource_alignment, 0644, pci_resource_alignment_show,
>>>> pci_resource_alignment_store);
>>>>
>>>> +static void pci_resources_get_page_aligned(char *str)
>>>> +{
>>>> + if (!strncmp(str, "off", 3))
>>>> + pci_resources_page_aligned = false;
>>>> + else if (!strncmp(str, "on", 2))
>>>> + pci_resources_page_aligned = true;
>>>> +}
>>> "get"?
>>
>> How about pci_resources_parse_page_aligned_param()?
> Better.
>
>>>> +
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * This function checks whether PCI BARs' mmio page will be shared
>>>> + * with other BARs.
>>>> + */
>>>> +bool pci_resources_share_page(struct pci_dev *dev, int resno)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct resource *res = dev->resource + resno;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (resource_size(res) >= PAGE_SIZE)
>>>> + return false;
>>>> + if (pci_resources_page_aligned && !(res->start & ~PAGE_MASK) &&
>>>> + res->flags & IORESOURCE_MEM) {
>>>> + if (res->sibling)
>>>> + return (res->sibling->start & ~PAGE_MASK);
>>>> + else
>>>> + return false;
>>>> + }
>>>> + return true;
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_resources_share_page);
>>>> +
>>>> static int __init pci_resource_alignment_sysfs_init(void)
>>>> {
>>>> return bus_create_file(&pci_bus_type,
>>>> @@ -4859,6 +4891,9 @@ static int __init pci_setup(char *str)
>>>> } else if (!strncmp(str, "resource_alignment=", 19)) {
>>>> pci_set_resource_alignment_param(str + 19,
>>>> strlen(str + 19));
>>>> + } else if (!strncmp(str, "resource_page_aligned=",
>>>> + 22)) {
>>>> + pci_resources_get_page_aligned(str + 22);
>>> Doesn't this seem rather redundant with the option right above it,
>>> resource_alignment=? Why not modify that to support syntax where all
>>> devices get the same alignment?
>>>
>>
>> The kernel option will be used to do two things.
>>
>> Firstly, the option can be used to enable all devices to be page aligned.
>>
>> Secondly, we can use the option to disable it when the Kconfig option
>> mentioned above enable all devices to be page aligned by default.
>>
>> We can easily modify this option "resource_alignment=" to do the first
>> thing. But I didn't find a proper way to modify it to do the second thing.
> You could allow an arch specified default which is overridden by
> specifying a resource_alignment= value. Then you need a way to disable
> it, which you could simply do by making
> pci_set_resource_alignment_param() able to parse something like
> resource_alignment=off.
We just want to enforce the alignment of all MMIO BARs to be page
aligned in this patch. And both the arch specified default value and
pci_resources_page_aligned are something like *on/off* enforcing the
alignment of resources to be page aligned.
So I think it's better to add a parameter whose format is *on/off*.
If we reuse "resource_alignment=", we need an additional translation
from "resource_alignment="(format: [<order of align>@]...) to
pci_resources_page_aligned(format: true/false).
And "resource_alignment=" is always used to specify alignments of devices.
Would it be misunderstanding to add some syntax like
"resource_alignment=off"?
>>>> } else if (!strncmp(str, "ecrc=", 5)) {
>>>> pcie_ecrc_get_policy(str + 5);
>>>> } else if (!strncmp(str, "hpiosize=", 9)) {
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.h b/drivers/pci/pci.h
>>>> index d390fc1..b9b333d 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/pci.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.h
>>>> @@ -312,11 +312,17 @@ static inline resource_size_t pci_resource_alignment(struct pci_dev *dev,
>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_IOV
>>>> int resno = res - dev->resource;
>>>>
>>>> - if (resno >= PCI_IOV_RESOURCES && resno <= PCI_IOV_RESOURCE_END)
>>>> + if (resno >= PCI_IOV_RESOURCES && resno <= PCI_IOV_RESOURCE_END) {
>>>> + if (pci_resources_page_aligned && res->flags & IORESOURCE_MEM)
>>>> + return PAGE_ALIGN(pci_sriov_resource_alignment(dev,
>>>> + resno));
>>>> return pci_sriov_resource_alignment(dev, resno);
>>>> + }
>>>> #endif
>>>> if (dev->class >> 8 == PCI_CLASS_BRIDGE_CARDBUS)
>>>> return pci_cardbus_resource_alignment(res);
>>>> + if (pci_resources_page_aligned && res->flags & IORESOURCE_MEM)
>>>> + return PAGE_ALIGN(resource_alignment(res));
>>>> return resource_alignment(res);
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Since we already have resource_alignment=, shouldn't we already have the
>>> code in place to re-align?
>>
>> Yes, this code can do the re-aligning. But we can't reuse the code because
>> it re-align device's bars by changing their sizes, which can potentially
>> break
>> some drivers.
>>
>> I'm thinking if we can use IORESOURCE_STARTALIGN for this. Thanks.
> Shouldn't we fix resource_alignment= then to make it behave in a more
> compatible way then? resource_alignment=64k,resource_resize=off?
> Thanks,
>
> Alex
>
Good point! We can add something like "resource_resize=off" to
"resource_alignment=". Then we can reuse the re-aligning code. Thanks.
Regards,
Yongji Xie
Powered by blists - more mailing lists