[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231026205319.GA1832508@bhelgaas>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 15:53:19 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Tomasz Pala <gotar@...anet.pl>
Cc: linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Dan J Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
David E Box <david.e.box@...el.com>,
Yunying Sun <yunying.sun@...el.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Giovanni Cabiddu <giovanni.cabiddu@...el.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Florent DELAHAYE <linuxkernelml@...ead.fr>,
Konrad J Hambrick <kjhambrick@...il.com>,
Matt Hansen <2lprbe78@...k.com>,
Nicholas Johnson <nicholas.johnson-opensource@...look.com.au>,
Benoit Grégoire <benoitg@...us.ca>,
Werner Sembach <wse@...edocomputers.com>,
mumblingdrunkard@...tonmail.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/pci: Treat EfiMemoryMappedIO as reservation of
ECAM space
On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 05:33:47PM +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 12:02:43 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > Normally we reject ECAM space unless it is reported as reserved in the E820
> > table or via a PNP0C02 _CRS method (PCI Firmware, r3.3, sec 4.1.2). This
> > means PCI extended config space (offsets 0x100-0xfff) may not be accessible.
> >
> > Some firmware doesn't report ECAM space via PNP0C02 _CRS methods, but does
> > mention it as an EfiMemoryMappedIO region via EFI GetMemoryMap(), which is
> > normally converted to an E820 entry by a bootloader or EFI stub.
> >
> > 07eab0901ede ("efi/x86: Remove EfiMemoryMappedIO from E820 map"), removes
> > E820 entries that correspond to EfiMemoryMappedIO regions because some
> > other firmware uses EfiMemoryMappedIO for PCI host bridge windows, and the
> > E820 entries prevent Linux from allocating BAR space for hot-added devices.
> >
> > Allow use of ECAM for extended config space when the region is covered by
> > an EfiMemoryMappedIO region, even if it's not included in E820 or PNP0C02
> > _CRS.
>
> I'm still having a problem initializing ixgbe NICs with pristine 6.5.7 kernel.
Thanks very much for the report, and sorry for the inconvenience and
my delay in looking at it.
> efi: Remove mem63: MMIO range=[0x80000000-0x8fffffff] (256MB) from e820 map
> [mem 0x7f800000-0xfed1bfff] available for PCI devices
> PCI: MMCONFIG for domain 0000 [bus 00-ff] at [mem 0x80000000-0x8fffffff] (base 0x80000000)
> [Firmware Info]: PCI: MMCONFIG at [mem 0x80000000-0x8fffffff] not reserved in ACPI motherboard resources
> PCI: MMCONFIG at [mem 0x80000000-0x8fffffff] reserved as EfiMemoryMappedIO
> ixgbe 0000:02:00.0: enabling device (0140 -> 0142)
> ixgbe 0000:02:00.0: BAR 0: can't reserve [mem 0x80000000-0x8007ffff 64bit]
> ixgbe 0000:02:00.0: pci_request_selected_regions failed 0xfffffff0
> ixgbe: probe of 0000:02:00.0 failed with error -16
Something is wrong with our allocation scheme. Both the MMCONFIG
region and the ixgbe BAR 0 are at 0x80000000, which obviously cannot
work. Maybe the full dmesg log will have a clue about why we didn't
move ixgbe out of the way.
> After disabling the code causing this (using always-false condition:
> if (size >= 256*1024 && 0) {
> ) in the chunk:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221208190341.1560157-2-helgaas@kernel.org/
>
> the BAR starts at 0x90000000 (not 0x80000000):
>
> efi: Not removing mem63: MMIO range=[0x80000000-0x8fffffff] (262144KB) from e820 map
> [...]
> [mem 0x90000000-0xfed1bfff] available for PCI devices
> [...]
> PCI: MMCONFIG for domain 0000 [bus 00-ff] at [mem 0x80000000-0x8fffffff] (base 0x80000000)
> PCI: MMCONFIG at [mem 0x80000000-0x8fffffff] reserved as E820 entry
>
> and everything seems to work again.
>
>
> I've got full system bootup logs from the upstream and worked around,
> but I'm not sure if this is OK to attach them (the CC list is long).
Would you mind opening a new report at https://bugzilla.kernel.org,
attaching those logs, and responding here with the URL?
I looked at the proxmox thread you mentioned, but sometimes people
strip out parts of the log they think are irrelevant, and in this
case, the stripped-out parts *are* relevant.
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists