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

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>]

On October 3, 2022 10:34:15 AM PDT, Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Oct 3, 2022, at 8:03 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx> 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);

Also... any reason we can't just set raw_pci_ops == raw_ext_pci_ops for the 
case when the latter is preferred, and dispense with the conditionals in the 
use path? Similarly, raw_ext_pci_ops could be pointed to error routines instead 
of left at NULL.