| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <daa55fdc1193f237cc2d76c68e5e0488@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 20:50:30 -0500
From: Sasikumar PC <sasikumar.pc@...adcom.com>
To: Tomas Henzl <thenzl@...hat.com>, jejb@...nel.org, hch@...radead.org
Cc: linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
Sathya Prakash Veerichetty <sathya.prakash@...adcom.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christopher Owens <christopher.owens@...adcom.com>,
Kiran Kumar Kasturi <kiran-kumar.kasturi@...adcom.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V4 02/11] megaraid_sas: 128 MSIX Support
Hi Tomas,
Please see my response inline
Thanks
sasi
-----Original Message-----
From: Sasikumar PC [mailto:sasikumar.pc@...adcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 4:43 PM
To: 'Tomas Henzl'; 'jejb@...nel.org'; 'hch@...radead.org'
Cc: 'linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org'; Sathya Prakash Veerichetty;
'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org'; Christopher Owens; Kiran Kumar Kasturi
Subject: RE: [PATCH V4 02/11] megaraid_sas: 128 MSIX Support
Hi Tomas,
Please see my response inline
Thanks
sasi
-----Original Message-----
From: Tomas Henzl [mailto:thenzl@...hat.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 10:35 AM
To: Sasikumar Chandrasekaran; jejb@...nel.org; hch@...radead.org
Cc: linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org; Sathya.Prakash@...adcom.com;
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; christopher.owens@...adcom.com;
kiran-kumar.kasturi@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 02/11] megaraid_sas: 128 MSIX Support
On 7.12.2016 00:00, Sasikumar Chandrasekaran wrote:
> SAS3.5 Generic Megaraid based Controllers will have the support for
> 128 MSI-X vectors, resulting in the need to support 128 reply queues
>
> This patch is depending on patch 1
>
> Signed-off-by: Sasikumar Chandrasekaran <sasikumar.pc@...adcom.com>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas.h | 1 +
> drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_base.c | 24
+++++++++++++++++-------
> drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_fusion.c | 4 ++--
> 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas.h
> b/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas.h
> index 72e16c2..9d4ca8d 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas.h
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas.h
> @@ -2149,6 +2149,7 @@ struct megasas_instance {
> bool dev_handle;
> bool fw_sync_cache_support;
> bool is_ventura;
> + bool msix_combined;
> };
> struct MR_LD_VF_MAP {
> u32 size;
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_base.c
> b/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_base.c
> index efccf98..c583e0b 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_base.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_base.c
> @@ -5086,13 +5086,7 @@ static int megasas_init_fw(struct
megasas_instance *instance)
> goto fail_ready_state;
> }
>
> - /*
> - * MSI-X host index 0 is common for all adapter.
> - * It is used for all MPT based Adapters.
> - */
> - instance->reply_post_host_index_addr[0] =
> - (u32 __iomem *)((u8 __iomem *)instance->reg_set +
> - MPI2_REPLY_POST_HOST_INDEX_OFFSET);
> +
>
> /* Check if MSI-X is supported while in ready state */
> msix_enable = (instance->instancet->read_fw_status_reg(reg_set) &
@@
> -5110,6 +5104,9 @@ static int megasas_init_fw(struct megasas_instance
*instance)
> instance->msix_vectors = ((scratch_pad_2
> & MR_MAX_REPLY_QUEUES_EXT_OFFSET)
> >>
MR_MAX_REPLY_QUEUES_EXT_OFFSET_SHIFT) + 1;
> + if (instance->msix_vectors > 16)
> + instance->msix_combined = true;
> +
> if (rdpq_enable)
> instance->is_rdpq = (scratch_pad_2
& MR_RDPQ_MODE_OFFSET) ?
> 1 : 0;
> @@ -5143,6 +5140,19 @@ static int megasas_init_fw(struct
megasas_instance *instance)
> else
> instance->msix_vectors = 0;
> }
Have you tested this patch with the pci=nomsi kernel option?
Sasi - Driver is tested with pci=nomsi option and looking good
is it safe when msix_combined is true and pci_enable_msix_range fails so
instance->msix_vectors is zero?
msix_combined mode is dependent on how many vectors adapter supports, not
the actual vectors used.
It is correct to be in combined mode even if actual number of msix_vectors
used are fewer than 16, if hardware is in combined mode
Sasi
tomash
> + /*
> + * MSI-X host index 0 is common for all adapter.
> + * It is used for all MPT based Adapters.
> + */
> + if (instance->msix_combined) {
> + instance->reply_post_host_index_addr[0] =
> + (u32 *)((u8 *)instance->reg_set +
> + MPI2_SUP_REPLY_POST_HOST_INDEX_OFFSET);
> + } else {
> + instance->reply_post_host_index_addr[0] =
> + (u32 *)((u8 *)instance->reg_set +
> + MPI2_REPLY_POST_HOST_INDEX_OFFSET);
> + }
>
> dev_info(&instance->pdev->dev,
> "firmware supports msix\t: (%d)", fw_msix_count); diff
--git
> a/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_fusion.c
> b/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_fusion.c
> index 8d7a397..413e2030 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_fusion.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_fusion.c
> @@ -2391,7 +2391,7 @@ static void megasas_build_ld_nonrw_fusion(struct
megasas_instance *instance,
> * pending to be completed
> */
> if (threshold_reply_count >= THRESHOLD_REPLY_COUNT) {
> - if (fusion->adapter_type == INVADER_SERIES)
> + if (instance->msix_combined)
> writel(((MSIxIndex & 0x7) << 24) |
> fusion->last_reply_idx[MSIxIndex],
>
instance->reply_post_host_index_addr[MSIxIndex/8]);
> @@ -2407,7 +2407,7 @@ static void megasas_build_ld_nonrw_fusion(struct
megasas_instance *instance,
> return IRQ_NONE;
>
> wmb();
> - if (fusion->adapter_type == INVADER_SERIES)
> + if (instance->msix_combined)
> writel(((MSIxIndex & 0x7) << 24) |
> fusion->last_reply_idx[MSIxIndex],
>
instance->reply_post_host_index_addr[MSIxIndex/8]);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists