Received: by 2002:a25:ad19:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id y25csp5636324ybi; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:47:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzYjkX5zrLmAlONCWZL2ACYq8WUPhrRO2W7NDRnVBKEV8VdiaSC8wE3h7oAVaLiCTmJ4x4Q X-Received: by 2002:a63:eb51:: with SMTP id b17mr109325867pgk.384.1564559221558; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:47:01 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1564559221; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Xov1lRePjEFgI29GYUuC+YPhMrbrp50E420/sLrscRGggNgiKGBdAZIvTKvUi6cjfr BmeBw4gwASg8TH/tAzOMVwws7wC1KlyfJWkHwSPvE20y/CzqwTv/rHmzRobinoZE7Jgk VLU47NCwBxMZlhvXpWktUIMTTKHfR7gEzRkJVOnAvDML/GC4QUX7yuuooh2aTvb/+xX7 /h/rLlOKF4wtUe1xFHHzvvRXOVLjH6IGKHUNxgFH/U+Jv9vLz0BhEDfxiLZgrlhSry/Z wLR9s1qpeAA7CqRLa15M37KvwEuXyGJpaC7GsKXnB6GrP1EqCNMDgYiQsP/V1apXo+IS 8irg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:references:to:subject:cc; bh=ous2cZsDH1iYNEaW+PELlEnYS5C42C5sip+4AL1bWaU=; b=0GTuBeb9mnv1GB8gNFPdg6JCeIyGzY4pzLk4cj7ABH8Rqy//HO3TgGOfIbj4pmnBM5 qO5DTLDqkM0bcQWcFT6mPYzfYALI4MeRbC02u9gPvczX6ne4oiqSpQcoTPICAmACmbbo PYZ+zFcKiJQKa4dHD27QWYoWFTv/zfyvCTji8VcQExG0u0RYVX6WpPBUKhchheEdRUBa Tl/0qrdvH6MpuGfWNbYB702I5wo5FRPBrCDN2gxZTs4U75lFS0SJerszelAe5k3xbULd zW9KLajrJLJmGvSHwhWybYna71+bGjEMuSP2RpKSdHYnmwgG9zPOM8FnSYAXlHiybxB6 n90Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id p3si28658027plo.185.2019.07.31.00.46.46; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:47:01 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387399AbfGaHa0 (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 31 Jul 2019 03:30:26 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:41143 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726602AbfGaHaZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Jul 2019 03:30:25 -0400 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 Jul 2019 00:30:25 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,329,1559545200"; d="scan'208";a="183593373" Received: from allen-box.sh.intel.com (HELO [10.239.159.136]) ([10.239.159.136]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 Jul 2019 00:30:23 -0700 Cc: baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, Joerg Roedel , Ran Rozenstein , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" , Maor Gottlieb Subject: Re: Failure to recreate virtual functions To: Robin Murphy , Vlad Buslov References: <838a00c4-d5bd-08db-e39c-5f00686858b5@linux.intel.com> <6ece232e-3fe8-4bd9-cd4b-c8d90a106a30@arm.com> From: Lu Baolu Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 15:29:42 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6ece232e-3fe8-4bd9-cd4b-c8d90a106a30@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On 7/30/19 7:22 PM, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 30/07/2019 05:28, Lu Baolu wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 7/29/19 6:05 PM, Vlad Buslov wrote: >>> On Sat 27 Jul 2019 at 05:15, Lu Baolu  wrote: >>>> Hi Vilad, >>>> >>>> On 7/27/19 12:30 AM, Vlad Buslov wrote: >>>>> Hi Lu Baolu, >>>>> >>>>> Our mlx5 driver fails to recreate VFs when cmdline includes >>>>> "intel_iommu=on iommu=pt" after recent merge of patch set "iommu/vt-d: >>>>> Delegate DMA domain to generic iommu". I've bisected the failure to >>>>> patch b7297783c2bb ("iommu/vt-d: Remove duplicated code for device >>>>> hotplug"). Here is the dmesg log for following case: enable switchdev >>>>> mode, set number of VFs to 0, then set it back to any value >>>>>> 0. >>>>> [  223.525282] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.0: E-Switch: E-Switch enable >>>>> SRIOV: nvfs(2) mode (1) >>>>> [  223.562027] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.0: E-Switch: SRIOV enabled: >>>>> active vports(3) >>>>> [  223.663766] pci 0000:81:00.2: [15b3:101a] type 00 class 0x020000 >>>>> [  223.663864] pci 0000:81:00.2: enabling Extended Tags >>>>> [  223.665143] pci 0000:81:00.2: Adding to iommu group 52 >>>>> [  223.665215] pci 0000:81:00.2: Using iommu direct mapping >>>>> [  223.665771] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.2: enabling device (0000 -> 0002) >>>>> [  223.665890] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.2: firmware version: 16.26.148 >>>>> [  223.889908] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.2: Rate limit: 127 rates are >>>>> supported, range: 0Mbps to 97656Mbps >>>>> [  223.896438] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.2: MLX5E: StrdRq(1) RqSz(8) >>>>> StrdSz(2048) RxCqeCmprss(0) >>>>> [  223.896636] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.2: Assigned random MAC address >>>>> 56:1f:95:e0:51:d6 >>>>> [  224.012905] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.2 ens1f0v0: renamed from eth0 >>>>> [  224.041651] pci 0000:81:00.3: [15b3:101a] type 00 class 0x020000 >>>>> [  224.041711] pci 0000:81:00.3: enabling Extended Tags >>>>> [  224.043660] pci 0000:81:00.3: Adding to iommu group 53 >>>>> [  224.043738] pci 0000:81:00.3: Using iommu direct mapping >>>>> [  224.044196] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.3: enabling device (0000 -> 0002) >>>>> [  224.044298] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.3: firmware version: 16.26.148 >>>>> [  224.268099] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.3: Rate limit: 127 rates are >>>>> supported, range: 0Mbps to 97656Mbps >>>>> [  224.274983] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.3: MLX5E: StrdRq(1) RqSz(8) >>>>> StrdSz(2048) RxCqeCmprss(0) >>>>> [  224.275195] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.3: Assigned random MAC address >>>>> a6:1e:56:0a:d9:f2 >>>>> [  224.388359] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.3 ens1f0v1: renamed from eth0 >>>>> [  236.325027] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.0: E-Switch: disable SRIOV: >>>>> active vports(3) mode(1) >>>>> [  236.362766] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.0: E-Switch: E-Switch enable >>>>> SRIOV: nvfs(2) mode (2) >>>>> [  237.290066] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.0: MLX5E: StrdRq(1) RqSz(8) >>>>> StrdSz(2048) RxCqeCmprss(0) >>>>> [  237.350215] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.0: MLX5E: StrdRq(1) RqSz(8) >>>>> StrdSz(2048) RxCqeCmprss(0) >>>>> [  237.373052] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.0 ens1f0: renamed from eth0 >>>>> [  237.390768] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.0: MLX5E: StrdRq(1) RqSz(8) >>>>> StrdSz(2048) RxCqeCmprss(0) >>>>> [  237.447846] ens1f0_0: renamed from eth0 >>>>> [  237.460399] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.0: E-Switch: SRIOV enabled: >>>>> active vports(3) >>>>> [  237.526880] ens1f0_1: renamed from eth1 >>>>> [  248.953873] pci 0000:81:00.2: Removing from iommu group 52 >>>>> [  248.954114] pci 0000:81:00.3: Removing from iommu group 53 >>>>> [  249.960570] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.0: E-Switch: disable SRIOV: >>>>> active vports(3) mode(2) >>>>> [  250.319135] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.0: MLX5E: StrdRq(1) RqSz(8) >>>>> StrdSz(2048) RxCqeCmprss(0) >>>>> [  250.559431] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.0 ens1f0: renamed from eth0 >>>>> [  258.819162] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.0: E-Switch: E-Switch enable >>>>> SRIOV: nvfs(2) mode (1) >>>>> [  258.831625] mlx5_core 0000:81:00.0: E-Switch: SRIOV enabled: >>>>> active vports(3) >>>>> [  258.936160] pci 0000:81:00.2: [15b3:101a] type 00 class 0x020000 >>>>> [  258.936258] pci 0000:81:00.2: enabling Extended Tags >>>>> [  258.937438] pci 0000:81:00.2: Failed to add to iommu group 52: -16 >>>> It seems that an EBUSY error returned from iommu_group_add_device(). >>>> Can >>>> you please hack some debug messages in iommu_group_add_device() so that >>>> we can know where the EBUSY returns? >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Baolu >>> The error code is returned by __iommu_attach_device(). >>> >> >> Thanks! >> >> It looks like the system has already a domain for specific pci bdf >> device. Does this VF share the bdf with other devices? Or has been >> previously created, and system failed to get chance to remove it? > > At a glance, it looks like it might be down to > intel_iommu_remove_device() not calling dmar_remove_one_dev_info() like > the old notifier did. If the group is getting torn down and recreated, > but the driver still has a stale pointer to the old default domain > cached, which dmar_insert_one_dev_info() finds and returns, that would > seem to explain the observed behaviour. Yes agreed. Vlad, Can you please try below change? diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c index baf21001c339..abffc520fe05 100644 --- a/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel-iommu.c @@ -5575,6 +5575,8 @@ static void intel_iommu_remove_device(struct device *dev) if (!iommu) return; + dmar_remove_one_dev_info(dev); + iommu_group_remove_device(dev); iommu_device_unlink(&iommu->iommu, dev); Best regards, Baolu