[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180314025639.GA50067@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 21:56:39 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
Cc: Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>,
Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] PCI/P2PDMA: Support peer-to-peer memory
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 05:21:20PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> On 13/03/18 05:08 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:31:55PM +0000, Stephen Bates wrote:
> > If it *is* necessary because Root Ports and devices below them behave
> > differently than in conventional PCI, I think you should include a
> > reference to the relevant section of the spec and check directly for a
> > Root Port. I would prefer that over trying to exclude Root Ports by
> > looking for two upstream bridges.
>
> Well we've established that we don't want to allow root ports.
I assume you want to exclude Root Ports because of multi-function
devices and the "route to self" error. I was hoping for a reference
to that so I could learn more about it.
While I was looking for it, I found sec 6.12.1.2 (PCIe r4.0), "ACS
Functions in SR-IOV Capable and Multi-Function Devices", which seems
relevant. It talks about "peer-to-peer Requests (between Functions of
the device)". Thay says to me that multi-function devices can DMA
between themselves.
> But we need to, at a minimum, do two pci_upstream_bridge() calls...
>
> Remember, we need to check that a number of devices are behind the same
> switch. So we need to find a _common_ upstream port for several devices.
I agree that peers need to have a common upstream bridge. I think
you're saying peers need to have *two* common upstream bridges. If I
understand correctly, requiring two common bridges is a way to ensure
that peers directly below Root Ports don't try to DMA to each other.
So I guess the first order of business is to nail down whether peers
below a Root Port are prohibited from DMAing to each other. My
assumption, based on 6.12.1.2 and the fact that I haven't yet found
a prohibition, is that they can.
> Excluding the multifunction device case (which I don't think is
> applicable for reasons we've discussed before), this will *never* be the
> first upstream port for a given device.
If you're looking for a common upstream bridge, you don't need to make
assumptions about whether the hierarchy is conventional PCI or PCIe or
how many levels are in the hierarchy.
You already have upstream_bridges_match(), which takes two pci_devs.
I think it should walk up the PCI hierarchy from the first device,
checking whether the bridge at each level is also a parent of the
second device.
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists