Re: [PATCH v2] x86/PCI: Prefer MMIO over PIO on all hypervisor

[Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ajay Kaher <akaher@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> On 13/09/22, 7:05 PM, "Vitaly Kuznetsov" <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Vitaly for your response.
>>>
>>> 1. we have multiple objects of struct pci_raw_ops, 2. adding 'priority' 
>>> field to struct pci_raw_ops
>>> doesn't seems to be appropriate as need to take decision which object of 
>>> struct pci_raw_ops has
>>> to be used, not something with-in struct pci_raw_ops.
>>
>> I'm not sure I follow, you have two instances of 'struct pci_raw_ops'
>> which are called 'raw_pci_ops' and 'raw_pci_ext_ops'. What if you do
>> something like (completely untested):
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h
>> index 70533fdcbf02..fb8270fa6c78 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pci_x86.h
>> @@ -116,6 +116,7 @@ extern void (*pcibios_disable_irq)(struct pci_dev *dev);
>> extern bool mp_should_keep_irq(struct device *dev);
>>
>> struct pci_raw_ops {
>> +       int rating;
>>          int (*read)(unsigned int domain, unsigned int bus, unsigned int 
>> devfn,
>>                                                int reg, int len, u32 *val);
>>          int (*write)(unsigned int domain, unsigned int bus, unsigned int 
>> devfn,
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/common.c b/arch/x86/pci/common.c
>> index ddb798603201..e9965fd11576 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 &&
>> +           (!raw_pci_ext_ops || raw_pci_ext_ops->rating <= 
>> raw_pci_ops->rating))
>>                 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 &&
>> +           (!raw_pci_ext_ops || raw_pci_ext_ops->rating <= 
>> raw_pci_ops->rating))
>>                 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);
>>
>> and then somewhere in Vmware hypervisor initialization code
>> (arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c) you do
>>
>>  raw_pci_ext_ops->rating = 100;
>
> Thanks Vitaly, for your review and helping us to improve the code.
>
> I was working to make changes as you suggested, but before sending v3 would 
> like to
> discuss on following:
>
> If we add rating with-in struct pci_raw_ops then we can't have pci_mmcfg as 
> const,
> and following change is must in arch/x86/pci/mmconfig_64.c:
>
> -const struct pci_raw_ops pci_mmcfg = {
> +struct pci_raw_ops pci_mmcfg = {
>       .read =         pci_mmcfg_read,
>       .write =        pci_mmcfg_write,
> };
>
> So to avoid this change, is it fine to have global bool 
> prefer_raw_pci_ext_ops?
>
> And raw_pci_read() will have following change:
>
> -     if (domain == 0 && reg < 256 && raw_pci_ops)
> +     if (domain == 0 && reg < 256 && raw_pci_ops &&
> +          (!prefer_raw_pci_ext_ops ||  !raw_pci_ext_ops)
>

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.

...

-- 
Vitaly