Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7] VT-d: use correct BDF for VF to search VT-d unit

[Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 02:46:08PM +0800, Chao Gao wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 08:31:51AM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 01:20:13AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 23.08.17 at 09:16, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:05:14AM +0800, Chao Gao wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 06:43:49AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >> >>>> On 21.08.17 at 23:52, <chao.gao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >> --- a/xen/include/xen/pci.h
> >> >> >> +++ b/xen/include/xen/pci.h
> >> >> >> @@ -39,6 +39,10 @@
> >> >> >>  #define PCI_SBDF3(s,b,df) ((((s) & 0xffff) << 16) | PCI_BDF2(b, df))
> >> >> >>  
> >> >> >>  struct pci_dev_info {
> >> >> >> +    /*
> >> >> >> +     * When 'is_virtfn' is set, 'is_extfn' is re-used to indicate 
> >> >> >> whether
> >> >> >> +     * the PF of this VF is an extended function.
> >> >> >> +     */
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I'd be inclined to extend the comment by appending ", as a VF itself
> >> >> >can never be an extended function." Is that correct? If so, would
> >> >> 
> >> >> Hi, Jan and Roger.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Strictly speaking, the VF can be an extended function. The definition is
> >> >> within ARI device (in this kind of device, device field is treated as an
> >> >> extension of function number) and function number is greater than 7. But
> >> >> this field isn't used as we don't care about whether a VF is or not an
> >> >> extended function (at least at present).
> >> >> 
> >> >> Eric reviewed this patch and told me we may match
> >> >> 'if ( pdev->info.is_extfn )' in acpi_find_matched_drhd_unit.
> >> >> So we may introduce a new field like what I do in v6 or check
> >> >> 'pdev->info.is_virtfn' first in acpi_find_matched_drhd_unit (maybe other
> >> >> places we check pdev->info.is_extfn).
> >> >> 
> >> >> Which one do you prefer?
> >> > 
> >> > Looking at this again I'm not sure why you need any modifications to
> >> > acpi_find_matched_drhd_unit. If the virtual function is an extended
> >> > function pdev->bus should be equal to pdev->info.physfn.bus, in which
> >> > case the already existing is_extfn check will already DTRT?
> >> > 
> >> > Ie: an extended VF should always have the same bus as the PF it
> >> > belongs to, unless I'm missing something.
> >> 
> >> Why would that be?
> >
> >It is my understanding (which might be wrong), that an extended
> >function simply uses 8 bits for the function number, which on a
> >traditional device would be used for both the slot and the function
> >number.
> >
> >So extended functions have no slot, but the bus number is the same for
> >all of them, or else they would belong to different devices due to the
> >difference in the bus numbers.
> >
> >Maybe what I'm missing is whether it is possible to have a device with
> >virtual functions that expand across several buses?
> 
> It is not true. Please refer to the 2.1.2 VF Discovery of SR-IOV spec.
> The numbers of VF can be larger than 256 and so it is definite that
> sometimes VF's bus number would be different from the PF's.

So that's what I was missing, thanks.

Then I would modify acpi_find_matched_drhd_unit so it's:

    if ( pdev->info.is_extfn )
    {
        bus = pdev->info.is_virtfn ? pdev->info.physfn.bus : pdev->bus;
        devfn = 0;
    }

AFAICT that should work?

Roger.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel