[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f96b1cf3-6865-663d-f1cd-466a71519b08@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 13:48:39 +0800
From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Vasant Hegde <vasant.hegde@....com>
Cc: baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, Matt Fagnani <matt.fagnani@...l.net>,
Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"regressions@...ts.linux.dev" <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [regression, bisected, pci/iommu] BugĀ 216865 - Black screen when amdgpu started during 6.2-rc1 boot with AMD IOMMU enabled
On 2023/1/6 22:14, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 03:57:28PM +0530, Vasant Hegde wrote:
>> Matt,
>>
>> On 1/5/2023 6:39 AM, Matt Fagnani wrote:
>>> I built 6.2-rc2 with the patch applied. The same black screen problem happened
>>> with 6.2-rc2 with the patch. I tried to use early kdump with 6.2-rc2 with the
>>> patch twice by panicking the kernel with sysrq+alt+c after the black screen
>>> happened. The system rebooted after about 10-20 seconds both times, but no kdump
>>> and dmesg files were saved in /var/crash. I'm attaching the lspci -vvv output as
>>> requested.
>>>
>> Thanks for testing. As mentioned earlier I was not expecting this patch to fix
>> the black screen issue. It should fix kernel warnings and IOMMU page fault
>> related call traces. By any chance do you have the kernel boot logs?
>>
>>
>> @Baolu,
>> Looking into lspci output, it doesn't list ACS feature for Graphics card. So
>> with your fix it didn't enable PASID and hence it failed to boot.
> The ACS checks being done are feature of the path not the end point or
> root port.
>
> If we are expecting ACS on the end port then it is just a bug in how
> the test was written.. The test should be a NOP because there are no
> switches in this topology.
>
> Looking at it, this seems to just be because pci_enable_pasid is
> calling pci_acs_path_enabled wrong, the only other user is here:
>
> for (bus = pdev->bus; !pci_is_root_bus(bus); bus = bus->parent) {
> if (!bus->self)
> continue;
>
> if (pci_acs_path_enabled(bus->self, NULL, REQ_ACS_FLAGS))
> break;
>
> pdev = bus->self;
>
> group = iommu_group_get(&pdev->dev);
> if (group)
> return group;
> }
>
> And notice it is calling it on pdev->bus not on pdev itself which
> naturally excludes the end point from the ACS validation.
>
> So try something like:
>
> if (!pci_acs_path_enabled(pdev->bus->self, NULL, PCI_ACS_RR | PCI_ACS_UF))
>
> (and probably need to check for null ?)
Hi Matt,
Do you mind helping to test below change? No other change needed.
diff --git a/drivers/pci/ats.c b/drivers/pci/ats.c
index f9cc2e10b676..48f34cc996e4 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/ats.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/ats.c
@@ -382,8 +382,15 @@ int pci_enable_pasid(struct pci_dev *pdev, int
features)
if (!pasid)
return -EINVAL;
- if (!pci_acs_path_enabled(pdev, NULL, PCI_ACS_RR | PCI_ACS_UF))
- return -EINVAL;
+ if (pdev->multifunction) {
+ if (!pci_acs_path_enabled(pdev, NULL, PCI_ACS_RR |
PCI_ACS_UF))
+ return -EINVAL;
+ } else {
+ if (!pdev->bus->self ||
+ !pci_acs_path_enabled(pdev->bus->self, NULL,
+ PCI_ACS_RR | PCI_ACS_UF))
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
pci_read_config_word(pdev, pasid + PCI_PASID_CAP, &supported);
supported &= PCI_PASID_CAP_EXEC | PCI_PASID_CAP_PRIV;
--
Best regards,
baolu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists