From: Gavin Shan <gwshan@linux•vnet.ibm.com>
To: Wei Yang <weiyang@linux•vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Gavin Shan <gwshan@linux•vnet.ibm.com>,
aik@ozlabs•ru, benh@kernel•crashing.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs•org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 6/6] powerpc/powernv: allocate discrete PE# when using M64 BAR in Single PE mode
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 13:43:01 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150807034301.GA8624@gwshan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150807023333.GH8292@richard>
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 10:33:33AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 11:36:56AM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
>>On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 09:41:41PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>>>On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 03:36:01PM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
>>>>On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 09:25:03AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>>>>>When M64 BAR is set to Single PE mode, the PE# assigned to VF could be
>>>>>discrete.
>>>>>
>>>>>This patch restructures the patch to allocate discrete PE# for VFs when M64
>>>>>BAR is set to Single PE mode.
>>>>>
>>>>>Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <weiyang@linux•vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>>---
>>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h | 2 +-
>>>>> arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>>>> 2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>>diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h
>>>>>index 8aeba4c..72415c7 100644
>>>>>--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h
>>>>>+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h
>>>>>@@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ struct pci_dn {
>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_IOV
>>>>> u16 vfs_expanded; /* number of VFs IOV BAR expanded */
>>>>> u16 num_vfs; /* number of VFs enabled*/
>>>>>- int offset; /* PE# for the first VF PE */
>>>>>+ int *offset; /* PE# for the first VF PE or array */
>>>>> bool m64_single_mode; /* Use M64 BAR in Single Mode */
>>>>> #define IODA_INVALID_M64 (-1)
>>>>> int (*m64_map)[PCI_SRIOV_NUM_BARS];
>>>>
>>>>how about renaming "offset" to "pe_num_map", or "pe_map" ? Similar to the comments
>>>>I gave to the "m64_bar_map", num_of_max_vfs entries can be allocated. Though not
>>>>all of them will be used, not too much memory will be wasted.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks for your comment.
>>>
>>>I have thought about change the name to make it more self explain. While
>>>another fact I want to take in is this field is also used to be reflect the
>>>shift offset when M64 BAR is used in the Shared Mode. So I maintain the name.
>>>
>>>How about use "enum", one maintain the name "offset", and another one rename to
>>>"pe_num_map". And use the meaningful name at proper place?
>>>
>
>So I suppose you agree with my naming proposal.
>
No, I dislike the "enum" things.
>>
>>Ok. I'm explaining it with more details. There are two cases: single vs shared
>>mode. When PHB M64 BARs run in single mode, you need an array to track the
>>allocated discrete PE#. The VF_index is the index to the array. When PHB M64
>>BARs run in shared mode, you need continuous PE#. No array required for this
>>case. Instead, the starting PE# should be stored to somewhere, which can
>>be pdn->offset[0] simply.
>>
>>So when allocating memory for this array, you just simply allocate (sizeof(*pdn->offset)
>>*max_vf_num) no matter what mode PHB's M64 BARs will run in. The point is nobody
>>can enable (max_vf_num + 1) VFs.
>
>The max_vf_num is 15?
>
I don't understand why you said: the max_vf_num is 15. Since max_vf_num is variable
on different PFs, how can it be fixed value - 15 ?
>>
>>With above way, the arrays for PE# and M64 BAR remapping needn't be allocated
>>when enabling SRIOV capability and releasing on disabling SRIOV capability.
>>Instead, those two arrays can be allocated during resource fixup time and free'ed
>>when destroying the pdn.
>>
>
>My same point of view like previous, if the memory is not in the concern, how
>about define them static?
>
It's a bad idea from my review. How many entries this array is going to have?
256 * NUM_OF_MAX_VF_BARS ?
>And for the long term, we may support more VFs. Then at that moment, we need
>to restructure the code to meet it.
>
>So I suggest if we want to allocate it dynamically, we allocate the exact
>number of space.
>
Fine... it can be improved when it has to be, as you said.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-07 3:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-29 7:22 [PATCH] powerpc/powernv: use one M64 BAR in Single PE mode for one VF BAR Wei Yang
2015-07-30 1:15 ` Gavin Shan
2015-07-30 5:43 ` Wei Yang
2015-07-31 0:13 ` Gavin Shan
2015-07-31 2:01 ` Wei Yang
2015-08-05 1:24 ` [PATCH V2 0/6] Redesign SR-IOV on PowerNV Wei Yang
2015-08-05 1:24 ` [PATCH V2 1/6] powerpc/powernv: don't enable SRIOV when VF BAR contains non M64 BAR Wei Yang
2015-08-06 4:35 ` Gavin Shan
2015-08-06 6:10 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2015-08-06 6:57 ` Gavin Shan
2015-08-06 7:47 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2015-08-06 11:07 ` Gavin Shan
2015-08-06 14:13 ` Wei Yang
2015-08-07 1:24 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2015-08-06 14:10 ` Wei Yang
2015-08-07 1:20 ` Gavin Shan
2015-08-07 2:24 ` Wei Yang
2015-08-07 3:50 ` Gavin Shan
2015-08-07 7:14 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2015-08-10 1:40 ` Wei Yang
2015-08-05 1:24 ` [PATCH V2 2/6] powerpc/powernv: simplify the calculation of iov resource Wei Yang
2015-08-06 4:51 ` Gavin Shan
2015-08-06 9:00 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2015-08-06 9:41 ` Wei Yang
2015-08-06 10:15 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2015-08-07 1:36 ` Wei Yang
2015-08-06 13:49 ` Wei Yang
2015-08-07 1:08 ` Gavin Shan
2015-08-05 1:25 ` [PATCH V2 3/6] powerpc/powernv: use one M64 BAR in Single PE mode for one VF BAR Wei Yang
2015-08-06 5:20 ` Gavin Shan
2015-08-06 9:36 ` Wei Yang
2015-08-06 10:07 ` Gavin Shan
2015-08-07 1:48 ` Wei Yang
2015-08-07 8:13 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2015-08-06 10:04 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2015-08-07 2:01 ` Wei Yang
2015-08-07 8:59 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2015-08-10 1:48 ` Wei Yang
2015-08-05 1:25 ` [PATCH V2 4/6] powerpc/powernv: replace the hard coded boundary with gate Wei Yang
2015-08-06 5:26 ` Gavin Shan
2015-08-07 9:11 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
2015-08-05 1:25 ` [PATCH V2 5/6] powerpc/powernv: boundary the total vf bar size instead of the individual one Wei Yang
2015-08-06 5:28 ` Gavin Shan
2015-08-06 14:03 ` Wei Yang
2015-08-07 1:23 ` Gavin Shan
2015-08-07 2:25 ` Wei Yang
2015-08-05 1:25 ` [PATCH V2 6/6] powerpc/powernv: allocate discrete PE# when using M64 BAR in Single PE mode Wei Yang
2015-08-06 5:36 ` Gavin Shan
2015-08-06 13:41 ` Wei Yang
2015-08-07 1:36 ` Gavin Shan
2015-08-07 2:33 ` Wei Yang
2015-08-07 3:43 ` Gavin Shan [this message]
2015-08-07 5:44 ` Wei Yang
2015-08-07 5:54 ` Gavin Shan
2015-08-07 6:25 ` Wei Yang
2015-08-07 10:00 ` Alexey Kardashevskiy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150807034301.GA8624@gwshan \
--to=gwshan@linux$(echo .)vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=aik@ozlabs$(echo .)ru \
--cc=benh@kernel$(echo .)crashing.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs$(echo .)org \
--cc=weiyang@linux$(echo .)vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox