[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v2 for-4.20? 6/6] PCI: drop pci_segments_init()


  • To: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2025 10:53:17 +0100
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx>, Volodymyr Babchuk <volodymyr_babchuk@xxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Feb 2025 09:53:35 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 04.02.2025 09:56, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 08:51:10AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 04.02.2025 08:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 03.02.2025 18:18, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 05:27:24PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/mmconfig-shared.c
>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/mmconfig-shared.c
>>>>> @@ -402,6 +402,9 @@ void __init acpi_mmcfg_init(void)
>>>>>  {
>>>>>      bool valid = true;
>>>>>  
>>>>> +    if ( pci_add_segment(0) )
>>>>> +        panic("Could not initialize PCI segment 0\n");
>>>>
>>>> Do you still need the pci_add_segment() call here?
>>>>
>>>> pci_add_device() will already add the segments as required, and
>>>> acpi_parse_mcfg() does also add the segments described in the MCFG.
>>>
>>> Well, in principle you're right. It's more the action in case of
>>> failure that makes me want to keep it: We won't fare very well on
>>> about every system if we can't register segment 0.
> 
> pci_add_segment() should only fail due to being out of memory, and I'm
> quite sure if pci_add_segment() was to fail here due to out of memory
> issues Xen won't be able to complete booting anyway.
> 
> Note the usage of "should only fail", as it's possible for
> radix_tree_insert() to return -EEXIST, but that shouldn't be possible
> given alloc_pseg() checks whether the segment is already added.

Let's continue this on v3, where I'm extending remarks on this change.
An option is to simply leave out this patch altogether. Then a follow-
on option would be to purge the call to pci_segments_init() with an
entirely different justification (e.g. yours).

> An unrelated question: looking at MCFG handling I've noticed that
> calling PHYSDEVOP_pci_mmcfg_reserved doesn't seem to result in the
> segment being added.  Is it on purpose that pci_mmcfg_reserved()
> doesn't attempt to allocate the hardware domain discovered segment?

That hypercall was added solely for the purpose of reporting resource
reservation status. While we could decide to re-purpose it to also
record the segment, that wasn't the goal so far.

Jan



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.