From: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>, Alexander Graf <graf@amazon.com>
Cc: Ajay Kaher <akaher@vmware.com>, "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
"hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"rostedt@goodmis.org" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Srivatsa Bhat <srivatsab@vmware.com>,
"srivatsa@csail.mit.edu" <srivatsa@csail.mit.edu>,
Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@vmware.com>,
Vasavi Sirnapalli <vsirnapalli@vmware.com>,
"er.ajay.kaher@gmail.com" <er.ajay.kaher@gmail.com>,
"willy@infradead.org" <willy@infradead.org>,
"linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org>,
"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
"jailhouse-dev@googlegroups.com" <jailhouse-dev@googlegroups.com>,
"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
"acrn-dev@lists.projectacrn.org" <acrn-dev@lists.projectacrn.org>,
"helgaas@kernel.org" <helgaas@kernel.org>,
"bhelgaas@google.com" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
"dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/PCI: Prefer MMIO over PIO on all hypervisor
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2022 17:34:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <04F550C5-786A-4B8E-9A88-EBFBD8872F16@vmware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87tu4l9cfm.fsf@redhat.com>
On Oct 3, 2022, at 8:03 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
> Not my but rather PCI maintainer's call but IMHO dropping 'const' is
> better, introducing a new global var is our 'last resort' and should be
> avoided whenever possible. Alternatively, you can add a
> raw_pci_ext_ops_preferred() function checking somethin within 'struct
> hypervisor_x86' but I'm unsure if it's better.
>
> Also, please check Alex' question/suggestion.
Here is my take (and Ajay knows probably more than me):
Looking briefly on MCFG, I do not see a clean way of using the ACPI table.
The two options are either to use a reserved field (which who knows, might
be used one day) or some OEM ID. I am also not familiar with
PCI_COMMAND.MEMORY=0, so Ajay can hopefully give some answer about that.
Anyhow, I understand (although not relate) to the objection for a new global
variable. How about explicitly calling this hardware bug a “bug” and using
the proper infrastructure? Calling it explicitly a bug may even push whoever
can to resolve it.
IOW, how about doing something along the lines of (not tested):
-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] x86/PCI: Prefer MMIO over PIO on VMware hypervisor
---
arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h | 1 +
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c | 2 ++
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c | 2 ++
arch/x86/pci/common.c | 6 ++++--
4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
index ef4775c6db01..216b6f357b6d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
@@ -460,5 +460,6 @@
#define X86_BUG_MMIO_UNKNOWN X86_BUG(26) /* CPU is too old and its MMIO Stale Data status is unknown */
#define X86_BUG_RETBLEED X86_BUG(27) /* CPU is affected by RETBleed */
#define X86_BUG_EIBRS_PBRSB X86_BUG(28) /* EIBRS is vulnerable to Post Barrier RSB Predictions */
+#define X86_BUG_ECAM_MMIO X86_BUG(29) /* ECAM MMIO is buggy and PIO is preferable */
#endif /* _ASM_X86_CPUFEATURES_H */
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
index 3e508f239098..c94175fa304b 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
@@ -1299,6 +1299,8 @@ static void __init cpu_set_bug_bits(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
{
u64 ia32_cap = x86_read_arch_cap_msr();
+ setup_force_cpu_bug(X86_BUG_ECAM_MMIO);
+
/* Set ITLB_MULTIHIT bug if cpu is not in the whitelist and not mitigated */
if (!cpu_matches(cpu_vuln_whitelist, NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT) &&
!(ia32_cap & ARCH_CAP_PSCHANGE_MC_NO))
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c
index 02039ec3597d..8903776284a6 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c
@@ -385,6 +385,8 @@ static void __init vmware_set_capabilities(void)
setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_VMCALL);
else if (vmware_hypercall_mode == CPUID_VMWARE_FEATURES_ECX_VMMCALL)
setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_VMW_VMMCALL);
+
+ setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_BUG_ECAM_MMIO);
}
static void __init vmware_platform_setup(void)
diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/common.c b/arch/x86/pci/common.c
index ddb798603201..bc81cf4c1014 100644
--- a/arch/x86/pci/common.c
+++ b/arch/x86/pci/common.c
@@ -40,7 +40,8 @@ const struct pci_raw_ops *__read_mostly raw_pci_ext_ops;
int raw_pci_read(unsigned int domain, unsigned int bus, unsigned int devfn,
int reg, int len, u32 *val)
{
- if (domain == 0 && reg < 256 && raw_pci_ops)
+ if (domain == 0 && reg < 256 && raw_pci_ops &&
+ (boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_ECAM_MMIO) || !raw_pci_ext_ops))
return raw_pci_ops->read(domain, bus, devfn, reg, len, val);
if (raw_pci_ext_ops)
return raw_pci_ext_ops->read(domain, bus, devfn, reg, len, val);
@@ -50,7 +51,8 @@ int raw_pci_read(unsigned int domain, unsigned int bus, unsigned int devfn,
int raw_pci_write(unsigned int domain, unsigned int bus, unsigned int devfn,
int reg, int len, u32 val)
{
- if (domain == 0 && reg < 256 && raw_pci_ops)
+ if (domain == 0 && reg < 256 && raw_pci_ops &&
+ (boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_ECAM_MMIO) || !raw_pci_ext_ops))
return raw_pci_ops->write(domain, bus, devfn, reg, len, val);
if (raw_pci_ext_ops)
return raw_pci_ext_ops->write(domain, bus, devfn, reg, len, val);
--
2.34.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-03 17:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-13 12:47 [PATCH v2] x86/PCI: Prefer MMIO over PIO on all hypervisor Ajay Kaher
2022-09-13 13:34 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2022-09-29 5:36 ` Ajay Kaher
2022-09-29 9:12 ` Alexander Graf
2022-10-03 15:03 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2022-10-03 17:34 ` Nadav Amit [this message]
2022-10-03 21:06 ` H. Peter Anvin
2022-10-03 21:28 ` Nadav Amit
2022-10-03 23:51 ` H. Peter Anvin
2022-10-04 0:19 ` Nadav Amit
2022-10-04 8:22 ` Alexander Graf
2022-10-04 18:48 ` Nadav Amit
2022-10-10 14:58 ` Nadav Amit
2022-10-10 17:05 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-10-04 8:30 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2022-10-03 21:01 ` H. Peter Anvin
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=04F550C5-786A-4B8E-9A88-EBFBD8872F16@vmware.com \
--to=namit@vmware.com \
--cc=acrn-dev@lists.projectacrn.org \
--cc=akaher@vmware.com \
--cc=amakhalov@vmware.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=er.ajay.kaher@gmail.com \
--cc=graf@amazon.com \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jailhouse-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=srivatsa@csail.mit.edu \
--cc=srivatsab@vmware.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=vsirnapalli@vmware.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).