All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, timur@codeaurora.org,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 2/2] PCI: handle CRS returned by device after FLR
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 14:16:51 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <563c7f28-851b-b531-34d0-2cee252766d0@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170802114924.18dd30e2@w520.home>

On 8/2/2017 1:49 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed,  2 Aug 2017 13:18:24 -0400

[snip]

>>  static void pci_flr_wait(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>  {
>> -	int i = 0;
>> +	u32 sleep = 1000, total = 0;
>>  	u32 id;
>> +	bool ret;
>>  
>>  	if (dev->is_virtfn) {
>>  		msleep(100);
>>  		return;
>>  	}
>>  
>> +	/* don't touch the HW before waiting 100ms */
>> +	msleep(100);
>> +
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be better as:
> 

Sure, that looks reasonable.

> 	msleep(100);
> 
> 	if (dev->is_virtfn)
> 		return;
> 
> Perhaps with a spec reference in a comment why we don't care about
> checking config space for the vf.

The spec reference is in the commit message of 

"PCI: limit FLR wait time to 100ms maximum"

where I introduce this check. Do you prefer a reference in the code?
I was under the impression that commit messages are used for these
kind of documentation.

> 
>>  	do {
>> -		msleep(100);
>> -		pci_read_config_dword(dev, PCI_COMMAND, &id);
>> -	} while (i++ < 10 && id == ~0);
>> -
>> -	if (id == ~0)
>> -		dev_warn(&dev->dev, "Failed to return from FLR\n");
>> -	else if (i > 1)
>> -		dev_info(&dev->dev, "Required additional %dms to return from FLR\n",
>> -			 (i - 1) * 100);
>> +		ret = pci_bus_read_dev_vendor_id(dev->bus, dev->devfn, &id,
>> +						 sleep);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			break;
>> +		total += sleep;
>> +		sleep *= 2;
>> +	} while (total < 60000 && !ret);
>> +
>> +	if (!ret)
>> +		dev_warn(&dev->dev, "Failed to return from FLR after %ds\n",
>> +			 total);
>> +	else if (total)
>> +		dev_info(&dev->dev, "Required additional %ds to return from FLR\n",
>> +			 total);
>>  }
> 
> I'm not a big fan.  Nested exponential backoff is pretty nasty.  Are
> there users of pci_bus_read_dev_vendor_id() that don't want a "still
> trying" message?  It seems better to add that to the function than try
> to wrap this bandage around it.  Thanks,

I can work towards that if Bjorn doesn't have any objections.

> 
> Alex
> 


-- 
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, timur@codeaurora.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 2/2] PCI: handle CRS returned by device after FLR
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 14:16:51 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <563c7f28-851b-b531-34d0-2cee252766d0@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170802114924.18dd30e2@w520.home>

On 8/2/2017 1:49 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed,  2 Aug 2017 13:18:24 -0400

[snip]

>>  static void pci_flr_wait(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>  {
>> -	int i = 0;
>> +	u32 sleep = 1000, total = 0;
>>  	u32 id;
>> +	bool ret;
>>  
>>  	if (dev->is_virtfn) {
>>  		msleep(100);
>>  		return;
>>  	}
>>  
>> +	/* don't touch the HW before waiting 100ms */
>> +	msleep(100);
>> +
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be better as:
> 

Sure, that looks reasonable.

> 	msleep(100);
> 
> 	if (dev->is_virtfn)
> 		return;
> 
> Perhaps with a spec reference in a comment why we don't care about
> checking config space for the vf.

The spec reference is in the commit message of 

"PCI: limit FLR wait time to 100ms maximum"

where I introduce this check. Do you prefer a reference in the code?
I was under the impression that commit messages are used for these
kind of documentation.

> 
>>  	do {
>> -		msleep(100);
>> -		pci_read_config_dword(dev, PCI_COMMAND, &id);
>> -	} while (i++ < 10 && id == ~0);
>> -
>> -	if (id == ~0)
>> -		dev_warn(&dev->dev, "Failed to return from FLR\n");
>> -	else if (i > 1)
>> -		dev_info(&dev->dev, "Required additional %dms to return from FLR\n",
>> -			 (i - 1) * 100);
>> +		ret = pci_bus_read_dev_vendor_id(dev->bus, dev->devfn, &id,
>> +						 sleep);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			break;
>> +		total += sleep;
>> +		sleep *= 2;
>> +	} while (total < 60000 && !ret);
>> +
>> +	if (!ret)
>> +		dev_warn(&dev->dev, "Failed to return from FLR after %ds\n",
>> +			 total);
>> +	else if (total)
>> +		dev_info(&dev->dev, "Required additional %ds to return from FLR\n",
>> +			 total);
>>  }
> 
> I'm not a big fan.  Nested exponential backoff is pretty nasty.  Are
> there users of pci_bus_read_dev_vendor_id() that don't want a "still
> trying" message?  It seems better to add that to the function than try
> to wrap this bandage around it.  Thanks,

I can work towards that if Bjorn doesn't have any objections.

> 
> Alex
> 


-- 
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: okaya@codeaurora.org (Sinan Kaya)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH V6 2/2] PCI: handle CRS returned by device after FLR
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 14:16:51 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <563c7f28-851b-b531-34d0-2cee252766d0@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170802114924.18dd30e2@w520.home>

On 8/2/2017 1:49 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed,  2 Aug 2017 13:18:24 -0400

[snip]

>>  static void pci_flr_wait(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>  {
>> -	int i = 0;
>> +	u32 sleep = 1000, total = 0;
>>  	u32 id;
>> +	bool ret;
>>  
>>  	if (dev->is_virtfn) {
>>  		msleep(100);
>>  		return;
>>  	}
>>  
>> +	/* don't touch the HW before waiting 100ms */
>> +	msleep(100);
>> +
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be better as:
> 

Sure, that looks reasonable.

> 	msleep(100);
> 
> 	if (dev->is_virtfn)
> 		return;
> 
> Perhaps with a spec reference in a comment why we don't care about
> checking config space for the vf.

The spec reference is in the commit message of 

"PCI: limit FLR wait time to 100ms maximum"

where I introduce this check. Do you prefer a reference in the code?
I was under the impression that commit messages are used for these
kind of documentation.

> 
>>  	do {
>> -		msleep(100);
>> -		pci_read_config_dword(dev, PCI_COMMAND, &id);
>> -	} while (i++ < 10 && id == ~0);
>> -
>> -	if (id == ~0)
>> -		dev_warn(&dev->dev, "Failed to return from FLR\n");
>> -	else if (i > 1)
>> -		dev_info(&dev->dev, "Required additional %dms to return from FLR\n",
>> -			 (i - 1) * 100);
>> +		ret = pci_bus_read_dev_vendor_id(dev->bus, dev->devfn, &id,
>> +						 sleep);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			break;
>> +		total += sleep;
>> +		sleep *= 2;
>> +	} while (total < 60000 && !ret);
>> +
>> +	if (!ret)
>> +		dev_warn(&dev->dev, "Failed to return from FLR after %ds\n",
>> +			 total);
>> +	else if (total)
>> +		dev_info(&dev->dev, "Required additional %ds to return from FLR\n",
>> +			 total);
>>  }
> 
> I'm not a big fan.  Nested exponential backoff is pretty nasty.  Are
> there users of pci_bus_read_dev_vendor_id() that don't want a "still
> trying" message?  It seems better to add that to the function than try
> to wrap this bandage around it.  Thanks,

I can work towards that if Bjorn doesn't have any objections.

> 
> Alex
> 


-- 
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

  reply	other threads:[~2017-08-02 18:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-08-02 17:18 [PATCH V6 1/2] PCI: limit FLR wait time to 100ms maximum Sinan Kaya
2017-08-02 17:18 ` Sinan Kaya
2017-08-02 17:18 ` Sinan Kaya
2017-08-02 17:18 ` [PATCH V6 2/2] PCI: handle CRS returned by device after FLR Sinan Kaya
2017-08-02 17:18   ` Sinan Kaya
2017-08-02 17:18   ` Sinan Kaya
2017-08-02 17:21   ` Sinan Kaya
2017-08-02 17:21     ` Sinan Kaya
2017-08-02 17:21     ` Sinan Kaya
2017-08-02 17:49   ` Alex Williamson
2017-08-02 17:49     ` Alex Williamson
2017-08-02 17:49     ` Alex Williamson
2017-08-02 18:16     ` Sinan Kaya [this message]
2017-08-02 18:16       ` Sinan Kaya
2017-08-02 18:16       ` Sinan Kaya

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=563c7f28-851b-b531-34d0-2cee252766d0@codeaurora.org \
    --to=okaya@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=timur@codeaurora.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.