[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 01/11] PCI/P2PDMA: Support peer-to-peer memory
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 05:21:20PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> On 13/03/18 05:08 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:31:55PM +0000, Stephen Bates wrote:
> > If it *is* necessary because Root Ports and devices below them behave
> > differently than in conventional PCI, I think you should include a
> > reference to the relevant section of the spec and check directly for a
> > Root Port. I would prefer that over trying to exclude Root Ports by
> > looking for two upstream bridges.
> Well we've established that we don't want to allow root ports.

I assume you want to exclude Root Ports because of multi-function
devices and the "route to self" error. I was hoping for a reference
to that so I could learn more about it.

While I was looking for it, I found sec (PCIe r4.0), "ACS
Functions in SR-IOV Capable and Multi-Function Devices", which seems
relevant. It talks about "peer-to-peer Requests (between Functions of
the device)". Thay says to me that multi-function devices can DMA
between themselves.

> But we need to, at a minimum, do two pci_upstream_bridge() calls...
> Remember, we need to check that a number of devices are behind the same
> switch. So we need to find a _common_ upstream port for several devices.

I agree that peers need to have a common upstream bridge. I think
you're saying peers need to have *two* common upstream bridges. If I
understand correctly, requiring two common bridges is a way to ensure
that peers directly below Root Ports don't try to DMA to each other.

So I guess the first order of business is to nail down whether peers
below a Root Port are prohibited from DMAing to each other. My
assumption, based on and the fact that I haven't yet found
a prohibition, is that they can.

> Excluding the multifunction device case (which I don't think is
> applicable for reasons we've discussed before), this will *never* be the
> first upstream port for a given device.

If you're looking for a common upstream bridge, you don't need to make
assumptions about whether the hierarchy is conventional PCI or PCIe or
how many levels are in the hierarchy.

You already have upstream_bridges_match(), which takes two pci_devs.
I think it should walk up the PCI hierarchy from the first device,
checking whether the bridge at each level is also a parent of the
second device.


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-14 03:57    [W:0.275 / U:0.452 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site