All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Takeshi Yoshimura <t.yoshimura8869@gmail.com>
To: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] vfio: fix workaround of BAR0 mapping
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 17:21:52 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALBPOTVLpMTf5D1FfrsuEEzeSHf-_VJXzm=amw2JzcMEuHBi+Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fa6ca8c8-8614-ab5b-ca87-e3e1f1e37248@intel.com>

2018-07-13 20:08 GMT+09:00 Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>:
> On 13-Jul-18 12:00 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
>>
>> On 13-Jul-18 11:11 AM, Takeshi Yoshimura wrote:
>>>
>>> The workaround of BAR0 mapping gives up and immediately returns an
>>> error if it cannot map around the MSI-X. However, recent version
>>> of VFIO allows MSIX mapping (*).
>>>
>>> I fixed not to return immediately but try mapping. In old Linux, mmap
>>> just fails and returns the same error as the code before my fix . In
>>> recent Linux, mmap succeeds and this patch enables running DPDK in
>>> specific environments (e.g., ppc64le with HGST NVMe)
>>>
>>> (*): "vfio-pci: Allow mapping MSIX BAR",
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/
>>> commit/id=a32295c612c57990d17fb0f41e7134394b2f35f6
>>>
>>> Fixes: 90a1633b2347 ("eal/linux: allow to map BARs with MSI-X tables")
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Takeshi Yoshimura <t.yoshimura8869@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Thanks, Anatoly.
>>>
>>> I updated the patch not to affect behaviors of older Linux and
>>> other environments as well as possible. This patch adds another
>>> chance to mmap BAR0.
>>>
>>> I noticed that the check at line 350 already includes the check
>>> of page size, so this patch does not fix the check.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Takeshi
>>
>>
>> Hi Takeshi,
>>
>> Please correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm not sure the old behavior is kept.
>>
>> Let's say we're running an old kernel, which doesn't allow mapping MSI-X
>> BARs. If MSI-X starts at beginning of the BAR (floor-aligned to page size),
>> and ends at or beyond end of BAR (ceiling-aligned to page size). In that
>> situation, old code just skipped the BAR and returned 0.
>>
>> We then exited the function, and there's a check for return value right
>> after pci_vfio_mmap_bar() that stop continuing if we fail to map something.
>> In the old code, we would continue as we went, and finish the rest of our
>> mappings. With your new code, you're attempting to map the BAR, it fails,
>> and you will return -1 on older kernels.
>>
>> I believe what we really need here is the following:
>>
>> 1) If this is a BAR containing MSI-X vector, first try mapping the entire
>> BAR. If it succeeds, great - that would be your new kernel behavior.
>> 2) If we failed on step 1), check to see if we can map around the BAR. If
>> we can, try to map around it like the current code does. If we cannot map
>> around it (i.e. if MSI-X vector, page aligned, occupies entire BAR), then we
>> simply return 0 and skip the BAR.
>>
>> That, i would think, would keep the old behavior and enable the new one.
>>
>> Does that make sense?
>>
>
> I envision this to look something like this:
>
> bool again = false;
> do {
>         if (again) {
>                 // set up mmap-around
>                 if (cannot map around)
>                         return 0;
>         }
>         // try mapping
>         if (map_failed && msix_table->bar_index == bar_index) {
>                 again = true;
>                 continue;
>         }
>         if (map_failed)
>                 return -1;
>         break/return 0;
> } while (again);
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Anatoly

That makes sense. The return code was not same as old one in some paths.

I wrote a code based on your idea. It works at least in my ppc64 and
x86 machines, but I am concerned that the error messages for
pci_map_resource() confuse users in old Linux. I saw a message like
this (even if I could mmap):
EAL: pci_map_resource(): cannot mmap(15, 0x728ee3a30000, 0x4000, 0x0):
Invalid argument (0xffffffffffffffff)

But anyway, I send it in the next email, and please check if there is
any other problems in the code.

Thanks,
Takeshi

  reply	other threads:[~2018-07-17  8:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-07-12  2:44 [PATCH] vfio: fix workaround of BAR0 mapping Takeshi Yoshimura
2018-07-12  3:08 ` [PATCH v2] " Takeshi Yoshimura
2018-07-12  9:10   ` Burakov, Anatoly
2018-07-13 10:11   ` [PATCH v3] " Takeshi Yoshimura
2018-07-13 11:00     ` Burakov, Anatoly
2018-07-13 11:08       ` Burakov, Anatoly
2018-07-17  8:21         ` Takeshi Yoshimura [this message]
2018-07-17  8:22   ` [PATCH v4] " Takeshi Yoshimura
2018-07-17 10:08     ` Burakov, Anatoly
2018-07-20  8:13   ` [PATCH v5] vfio: fix workaround of BAR mapping Takeshi Yoshimura
2018-07-26  9:35     ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-07-29  8:44       ` Jerin Jacob
2018-07-30  8:51         ` Burakov, Anatoly
2018-07-30 10:03           ` Burakov, Anatoly

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='CALBPOTVLpMTf5D1FfrsuEEzeSHf-_VJXzm=amw2JzcMEuHBi+Q@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=t.yoshimura8869@gmail.com \
    --cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.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.