From: "Piotr Piórkowski" <piotr.piorkowski@intel.com>
To: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>
Cc: <intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/xe/pf: Implement pci_driver.sriov_configure callback
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 10:06:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240426080602.vte7266rm7db4ylo@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240424212101.2221-1-michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>
Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> wrote on śro [2024-kwi-24 23:21:01 +0200]:
> The PCI subsystem already exposes the "sriov_numvfs" attribute
> that users can use to enable or disable SR-IOV VFs. Add custom
> implementation of the .sriov_configure callback defined by the
> pci_driver to perform additional steps, including fair VFs
> provisioning with the resources, as required by our platforms.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Makefile | 1 +
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci.c | 4 +
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci_sriov.c | 137 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci_sriov.h | 13 +++
> 4 files changed, 155 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci_sriov.c
> create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci_sriov.h
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Makefile b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Makefile
> index a67977edff5b..6acde66f0827 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Makefile
> @@ -169,6 +169,7 @@ xe-$(CONFIG_PCI_IOV) += \
> xe_lmtt.o \
> xe_lmtt_2l.o \
> xe_lmtt_ml.o \
> + xe_pci_sriov.o \
> xe_sriov_pf.o
>
> # include helpers for tests even when XE is built-in
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci.c
> index a0cf5dd803c2..f3efde939df4 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci.c
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
> #include "xe_macros.h"
> #include "xe_mmio.h"
> #include "xe_module.h"
> +#include "xe_pci_sriov.h"
> #include "xe_pci_types.h"
> #include "xe_pm.h"
> #include "xe_sriov.h"
> @@ -952,6 +953,9 @@ static struct pci_driver xe_pci_driver = {
> .probe = xe_pci_probe,
> .remove = xe_pci_remove,
> .shutdown = xe_pci_shutdown,
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI_IOV
> + .sriov_configure = xe_pci_sriov_configure,
> +#endif
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> .driver.pm = &xe_pm_ops,
> #endif
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci_sriov.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci_sriov.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..b4f312ebef80
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci_sriov.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
> +/*
> + * Copyright © 2023-2024 Intel Corporation
> + */
> +
> +#include "xe_assert.h"
> +#include "xe_device.h"
> +#include "xe_gt_sriov_pf_config.h"
> +#include "xe_pci_sriov.h"
> +#include "xe_pm.h"
> +#include "xe_sriov.h"
> +#include "xe_sriov_pf_helpers.h"
> +#include "xe_sriov_printk.h"
> +
> +static int pf_provision_vfs(struct xe_device *xe, unsigned int num_vfs)
> +{
> + struct xe_gt *gt;
> + unsigned int id;
> + int result = 0, err;
> +
> + for_each_gt(gt, xe, id) {
> + err = xe_gt_sriov_pf_config_set_fair(gt, 1, num_vfs);
maybe VFID(1) ?
> + result = result ?: err;
> + }
> +
> + return result;
> +}
> +
> +static void pf_unprovision_vfs(struct xe_device *xe, unsigned int num_vfs)
> +{
> + struct xe_gt *gt;
> + unsigned int id;
> + unsigned int n;
> +
> + for_each_gt(gt, xe, id)
> + for (n = 1; n <= num_vfs; n++)
> + xe_gt_sriov_pf_config_release(gt, n, true);
> +}
> +
> +static int pf_enable_vfs(struct xe_device *xe, unsigned int num_vfs)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = xe->drm.dev;
> + struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
> + int err;
> +
> + xe_assert(xe, IS_SRIOV_PF(xe));
> + xe_assert(xe, num_vfs > 0);
> + xe_assert(xe, num_vfs <= xe_sriov_pf_get_totalvfs(xe));
> + xe_sriov_dbg(xe, "enabling %u VF%s\n", num_vfs, str_plural(num_vfs));
> +
> + /*
> + * hold additional reference to the runtime PM as long as VFs are
> + * enabled to keep GuC alive - will be released in pf_disable_vfs()
> + */
> + xe_pm_runtime_get(xe);
> +
> + err = pf_provision_vfs(xe, num_vfs);
Why don't we check the err here ? Is it not relevant?
> +
> + err = pci_enable_sriov(pdev, num_vfs);
> + if (err < 0)
> + goto failed;
> +
> + xe_sriov_info(xe, "Enabled %u of %u VF%s\n",
> + num_vfs, pci_sriov_get_totalvfs(pdev),
> + str_plural(pci_sriov_get_totalvfs(pdev)));
NIT: in my subjective opinion, in a case like here we should use a variable,
as we use the same value in the same context. I know that here it doesn't
matter much, because the value returned by the function in this case is
constant, but somehow it bothers me.
> + return num_vfs;
> +
> +failed:
> + pf_unprovision_vfs(xe, num_vfs);
> + xe_pm_runtime_put(xe);
> +
> + xe_sriov_notice(xe, "Failed to enable %u VF%s (%pe)\n",
> + num_vfs, str_plural(num_vfs), ERR_PTR(err));
> + return err;
> +}
> +
> +static int pf_disable_vfs(struct xe_device *xe)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = xe->drm.dev;
> + struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
> + u16 num_vfs = pci_num_vf(pdev);
> +
> + xe_assert(xe, IS_SRIOV_PF(xe));
> + xe_sriov_dbg(xe, "disabling %u VF%s\n", num_vfs, str_plural(num_vfs));
> +
> + if (!num_vfs)
> + return 0;
> +
> + pci_disable_sriov(pdev);
> +
> + pf_unprovision_vfs(xe, num_vfs);
> +
> + /* not needed anymore - see pf_enable_vfs() */
> + xe_pm_runtime_put(xe);
> +
> + xe_sriov_info(xe, "Disabled %u VF%s\n", num_vfs, str_plural(num_vfs));
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * xe_pci_sriov_configure - Configure SR-IOV (enable/disable VFs).
> + * @pdev: the &pci_dev
> + * @num_vfs: number of VFs to enable or zero to disable all VFs
> + *
> + * This is the Xe implementation of struct pci_driver.sriov_configure callback.
> + *
> + * This callback will be called by the PCI subsystem to enable or disable SR-IOV
> + * Virtual Functions (VFs) as requested by the used via the PCI sysfs interface.
> + *
> + * Return: number of configured VFs or a negative error code on failure.
> + */
> +int xe_pci_sriov_configure(struct pci_dev *pdev, int num_vfs)
> +{
> + struct xe_device *xe = pdev_to_xe_device(pdev);
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (!IS_SRIOV_PF(xe))
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + if (num_vfs < 0)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (num_vfs > pci_sriov_get_totalvfs(pdev))
> + return -ERANGE;
Shouldn't we check xe_sriov_pf_get_totalvfs here ?
Thanks,
Piotr
> +
> + if (num_vfs && pci_num_vf(pdev))
> + return -EBUSY;
> +
> + xe_pm_runtime_get(xe);
> + if (num_vfs > 0)
> + ret = pf_enable_vfs(xe, num_vfs);
> + else
> + ret = pf_disable_vfs(xe);
> + xe_pm_runtime_put(xe);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci_sriov.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci_sriov.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..3b8bfbf7e1d9
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci_sriov.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT */
> +/*
> + * Copyright © 2023-2024 Intel Corporation
> + */
> +
> +#ifndef _XE_PCI_SRIOV_H_
> +#define _XE_PCI_SRIOV_H_
> +
> +struct pci_dev;
> +
> +int xe_pci_sriov_configure(struct pci_dev *pdev, int num_vfs);
> +
> +#endif
> --
> 2.43.0
>
--
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-26 8:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-24 21:21 [PATCH] drm/xe/pf: Implement pci_driver.sriov_configure callback Michal Wajdeczko
2024-04-24 21:40 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for " Patchwork
2024-04-24 21:40 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning " Patchwork
2024-04-24 21:41 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2024-04-24 21:53 ` ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2024-04-24 21:58 ` ✓ CI.Hooks: " Patchwork
2024-04-24 22:09 ` ✓ CI.checksparse: " Patchwork
2024-04-24 22:41 ` ✓ CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2024-04-26 8:06 ` Piotr Piórkowski [this message]
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=20240426080602.vte7266rm7db4ylo@intel.com \
--to=piotr.piorkowski@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=michal.wajdeczko@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
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;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).