With v2.6.35-rc5, my x86-64 server doesn't boot but reports a
Completer Abort on lpfc card.
The result of git-bisect is:
6175ddf06b6172046a329e3abfd9c901a43efd2e is the first bad commit
commit 6175ddf06b6172046a329e3abfd9c901a43efd2e
Author: Brian Gerst <[email protected]>
Date: Fri Feb 5 09:37:07 2010 -0500
x86: Clean up mem*io functions.
What I found are:
- memcpy for 64bit uses movq if count >= 64 (arch/x86/lib/memcpy_64.S)
- memcpy_toio and memcpy_fromio have changed to use this memcpy by
the above commit.
- my debug shows that lpfc calls memcpy_toio with not-qword-aligned
addresses and count >= 64, e.g.:
memcpy_toio(0xffffc900118de004, 0xffff88047293d614, 124);
and it seems that it comes from:
[drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c]
4929 /* First copy mbox command data to HBA SLIM, skip past first
4930 word */
4931 to_slim = phba->MBslimaddr + sizeof (uint32_t);
4932 lpfc_memcpy_to_slim(to_slim, &mb->un.varWords[0],
4933 MAILBOX_CMD_SIZE - sizeof (uint32_t));
Still I'm not sure what is wrong in software or hardware, however
I suppose that qword access to iomem is not always safe, so it will
be OK to back to use __inline_memcpy which uses movsl.
I confirmed that my server (w/ lpfc) boots with 35-rc5 + this patch.
Signed-off-by: Hidetoshi Seto <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/include/asm/io.h | 8 ++++++++
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/io.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/io.h
index 30a3e97..e15a74a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/io.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/io.h
@@ -227,13 +227,21 @@ memset_io(volatile void __iomem *addr, unsigned char val, size_t count)
static inline void
memcpy_fromio(void *dst, const volatile void __iomem *src, size_t count)
{
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
+ __inline_memcpy(dst, (const void __force *)src, count);
+#else
memcpy(dst, (const void __force *)src, count);
+#endif
}
static inline void
memcpy_toio(volatile void __iomem *dst, const void *src, size_t count)
{
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
+ __inline_memcpy((void __force *)dst, src, count);
+#else
memcpy((void __force *)dst, src, count);
+#endif
}
/*
--
1.7.1.1
On 07/20/2010 06:21 PM, Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
> With v2.6.35-rc5, my x86-64 server doesn't boot but reports a
> Completer Abort on lpfc card.
>
> The result of git-bisect is:
> 6175ddf06b6172046a329e3abfd9c901a43efd2e is the first bad commit
> commit 6175ddf06b6172046a329e3abfd9c901a43efd2e
> Author: Brian Gerst <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri Feb 5 09:37:07 2010 -0500
> x86: Clean up mem*io functions.
>
> What I found are:
> - memcpy for 64bit uses movq if count >= 64 (arch/x86/lib/memcpy_64.S)
> - memcpy_toio and memcpy_fromio have changed to use this memcpy by
> the above commit.
> - my debug shows that lpfc calls memcpy_toio with not-qword-aligned
> addresses and count >= 64, e.g.:
> memcpy_toio(0xffffc900118de004, 0xffff88047293d614, 124);
> and it seems that it comes from:
> [drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c]
> 4929 /* First copy mbox command data to HBA SLIM, skip past first
> 4930 word */
> 4931 to_slim = phba->MBslimaddr + sizeof (uint32_t);
> 4932 lpfc_memcpy_to_slim(to_slim, &mb->un.varWords[0],
> 4933 MAILBOX_CMD_SIZE - sizeof (uint32_t));
>
> Still I'm not sure what is wrong in software or hardware, however
> I suppose that qword access to iomem is not always safe, so it will
> be OK to back to use __inline_memcpy which uses movsl.
>
> I confirmed that my server (w/ lpfc) boots with 35-rc5 + this patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hidetoshi Seto <[email protected]>
A driver should not use the memcpy-like instructions if it isn't set up
to act as memory (meaning it can handle arbitrary byte enables.)
The function it should be using is called, fairly counterintuitively,
__iowrite32_copy(). It really should be called memcpy_toio32() or
something similar.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
(2010/07/21 11:48), H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/20/2010 06:21 PM, Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
>> With v2.6.35-rc5, my x86-64 server doesn't boot but reports a
>> Completer Abort on lpfc card.
>>
>> The result of git-bisect is:
>> 6175ddf06b6172046a329e3abfd9c901a43efd2e is the first bad commit
>> commit 6175ddf06b6172046a329e3abfd9c901a43efd2e
>> Author: Brian Gerst <[email protected]>
>> Date: Fri Feb 5 09:37:07 2010 -0500
>> x86: Clean up mem*io functions.
>>
>> What I found are:
>> - memcpy for 64bit uses movq if count >= 64 (arch/x86/lib/memcpy_64.S)
>> - memcpy_toio and memcpy_fromio have changed to use this memcpy by
>> the above commit.
>> - my debug shows that lpfc calls memcpy_toio with not-qword-aligned
>> addresses and count >= 64, e.g.:
>> memcpy_toio(0xffffc900118de004, 0xffff88047293d614, 124);
>> and it seems that it comes from:
>> [drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c]
>> 4929 /* First copy mbox command data to HBA SLIM, skip past first
>> 4930 word */
>> 4931 to_slim = phba->MBslimaddr + sizeof (uint32_t);
>> 4932 lpfc_memcpy_to_slim(to_slim, &mb->un.varWords[0],
>> 4933 MAILBOX_CMD_SIZE - sizeof (uint32_t));
>>
>> Still I'm not sure what is wrong in software or hardware, however
>> I suppose that qword access to iomem is not always safe, so it will
>> be OK to back to use __inline_memcpy which uses movsl.
>>
>> I confirmed that my server (w/ lpfc) boots with 35-rc5 + this patch.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hidetoshi Seto <[email protected]>
>
> A driver should not use the memcpy-like instructions if it isn't set up
> to act as memory (meaning it can handle arbitrary byte enables.)
So then is this a problem of lpfc driver?
James, could you agree on that?
> The function it should be using is called, fairly counterintuitively,
> __iowrite32_copy(). It really should be called memcpy_toio32() or
> something similar.
>
> -hpa
It seems that lpfc already implemented lpfc_memcpy_{to,from}_slim()
as such memcpy_*io32, but limited use of it to on big endian platforms
only. Now lpfc can move to use it always, right?
Thanks,
H.Seto
Yes, that would make sense.
"Hidetoshi Seto" <[email protected]> wrote:
>(2010/07/21 11:48), H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 07/20/2010 06:21 PM, Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
>>> With v2.6.35-rc5, my x86-64 server doesn't boot but reports a
>>> Completer Abort on lpfc card.
>>>
>>> The result of git-bisect is:
>>> 6175ddf06b6172046a329e3abfd9c901a43efd2e is the first bad commit
>>> commit 6175ddf06b6172046a329e3abfd9c901a43efd2e
>>> Author: Brian Gerst <[email protected]>
>>> Date: Fri Feb 5 09:37:07 2010 -0500
>>> x86: Clean up mem*io functions.
>>>
>>> What I found are:
>>> - memcpy for 64bit uses movq if count >= 64 (arch/x86/lib/memcpy_64.S)
>>> - memcpy_toio and memcpy_fromio have changed to use this memcpy by
>>> the above commit.
>>> - my debug shows that lpfc calls memcpy_toio with not-qword-aligned
>>> addresses and count >= 64, e.g.:
>>> memcpy_toio(0xffffc900118de004, 0xffff88047293d614, 124);
>>> and it seems that it comes from:
>>> [drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c]
>>> 4929 /* First copy mbox command data to HBA SLIM, skip past first
>>> 4930 word */
>>> 4931 to_slim = phba->MBslimaddr + sizeof (uint32_t);
>>> 4932 lpfc_memcpy_to_slim(to_slim, &mb->un.varWords[0],
>>> 4933 MAILBOX_CMD_SIZE - sizeof (uint32_t));
>>>
>>> Still I'm not sure what is wrong in software or hardware, however
>>> I suppose that qword access to iomem is not always safe, so it will
>>> be OK to back to use __inline_memcpy which uses movsl.
>>>
>>> I confirmed that my server (w/ lpfc) boots with 35-rc5 + this patch.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Hidetoshi Seto <[email protected]>
>>
>> A driver should not use the memcpy-like instructions if it isn't set up
>> to act as memory (meaning it can handle arbitrary byte enables.)
>
>So then is this a problem of lpfc driver?
>James, could you agree on that?
>
>> The function it should be using is called, fairly counterintuitively,
>> __iowrite32_copy(). It really should be called memcpy_toio32() or
>> something similar.
>>
>> -hpa
>
>It seems that lpfc already implemented lpfc_memcpy_{to,from}_slim()
>as such memcpy_*io32, but limited use of it to on big endian platforms
>only. Now lpfc can move to use it always, right?
>
>
>Thanks,
>H.Seto
>
--
Sent from my mobile phone. Please pardon any lack of formatting.
On 07/21/2010 06:23 PM, Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
>
> It seems that lpfc already implemented lpfc_memcpy_{to,from}_slim()
> as such memcpy_*io32, but limited use of it to on big endian platforms
> only. Now lpfc can move to use it always, right?
>
What it probably should do is instead of open-coding this stuff use
__iowrite32_copy and we probably should have a version without double
underscores which byteswaps on bigendian.
Personally I would not object to seeing a patch renaming
__iowrite32_copy() to memcpy_toio32()... especially since it doesn't
have the "memory or I/O space" property of iowrite and friends.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.