Re: [Xen-devel] MSI badness in xen-unstable

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 18.10.10 at 00:33, Bruce Edge <bruce.edge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> diff -r 3a5755249361 xen/arch/x86/msi.c
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/msi.c        Thu Oct 14 12:46:29 2010 +0100
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/msi.c        Sun Oct 17 15:32:05 2010 -0700
> @@ -549,14 +549,14 @@
>          return 0;
>      if ( (addr & PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_MASK) == 
> PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 )
>      {
> -        addr &= ~PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK;
> +        addr &= PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK;
>          if ( ++bir >= limit )
>              return 0;
>          return addr |
>                 ((u64)pci_conf_read32(bus, slot, func,
>                                       PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_0 + bir * 4) << 32);
>      }
> -    return addr & ~PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK;
> +    return addr & PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK;
>  }
> 
>  /**
> @@ -634,6 +634,14 @@
> 
>          ASSERT(!dev->msix_used_entries);
>          WARN_ON(msi->table_base != read_pci_mem_bar(bus, slot, func, bir));
> +        if(msi->table_base == read_pci_mem_bar(bus, slot, func, bir)) { // 
> XXX

Did you perhaps mean != here? The log you provided shows the two
values to be identical when these printk()s get executed (which raises
the question how the warning could get triggered, the more on line
635 when it sits on line 636 according to the patch).

> +                       printk( 
> "==================================================\n");
> +                       printk( "msi->table_base != read_pci_mem_bar(bus, 
> slot, func, bir)\n");
> +                       printk( "msi->table_base = %0lx\n", msi->table_base );
> +                       printk( "read_pci_mem_bar = %0lx\n", 
> read_pci_mem_bar(bus, slot, func, bir) );
> +                       printk( "bus=%0x, slot=%0x, func=%0x, bir=%0x\n", 
> bus, slot, func, bir);
> +                       printk( 
> "==================================================\n\n");
> +               }
> 
>          dev->msix_nr_entries = nr_entries;
>          dev->msix_table.first = PFN_DOWN(table_paddr);
> @@ -647,6 +655,11 @@
>          bir = (u8)(pba_offset & PCI_MSIX_BIRMASK);
>          pba_paddr = read_pci_mem_bar(bus, slot, func, bir);
>          WARN_ON(!pba_paddr);

Similar here: the warning sits on line 657, but the log shows warnings
only on lines 635, 639, and 660. Something's out of sync here.

> +        if (!pba_paddr) { // XXX
> +                       printk( 
> "==================================================\n");
> +                       printk( "No pba_addr: bus=%0x, slot=%0x, func=%0x, 
> bir=%0x\n", bus, slot, func, bir);
> +                       printk( 
> "==================================================\n\n");
> +               }
>          pba_paddr += pba_offset & ~PCI_MSIX_BIRMASK;
> 
>          dev->msix_pba.first = PFN_DOWN(pba_paddr);
> @@ -654,6 +667,14 @@
>                                        BITS_TO_LONGS(nr_entries) - 1);
>          WARN_ON(rangeset_overlaps_range(mmio_ro_ranges, dev->msix_pba.first,
>                                          dev->msix_pba.last));
> +        if ( rangeset_overlaps_range(mmio_ro_ranges, dev->msix_pba.first,
> +                                        dev->msix_pba.last)) { // XXX
> +                       printk( 
> "==================================================\n");
> +                       printk( "rangeset_overlaps_range\n" );
> +                       printk( "mmio_ro_ranges = %p, dev->msix_pba.first = 
> %0lx, dev->msix_pba.last = %0lx\n",
> +                                       mmio_ro_ranges, dev->msix_pba.first, 
> dev->msix_pba.last);
> +                       printk( 
> "==================================================\n\n");
> +               }
> 
>          if ( rangeset_add_range(mmio_ro_ranges, dev->msix_table.first,
>                                  dev->msix_table.last) )

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel