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;
Received-SPF: None (esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  igor.druzhinin@citrix.com) identity=pra;
  client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com;
  envelope-from="igor.druzhinin@citrix.com";
  x-sender="igor.druzhinin@citrix.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: domain of
  igor.druzhinin@citrix.com designates 162.221.158.21 as
  permitted sender) identity=mailfrom;
  client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com;
  envelope-from="igor.druzhinin@citrix.com";
  x-sender="igor.druzhinin@citrix.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1";
  x-record-text="v=spf1 ip4:209.167.231.154 ip4:178.63.86.133
  ip4:195.66.111.40/30 ip4:85.115.9.32/28 ip4:199.102.83.4
  ip4:192.28.146.160 ip4:192.28.146.107 ip4:216.52.6.88
  ip4:216.52.6.188 ip4:162.221.158.21 ip4:162.221.156.83 ~all"
Received-SPF: None (esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@mail.citrix.com) identity=helo;
  client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com;
  envelope-from="igor.druzhinin@citrix.com";
  x-sender="postmaster@mail.citrix.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
IronPort-SDR: 2iROYvmhvGaU9c4Wz9o+O792gJVVNt9kTQX9GaFM5PYP9KqwZ0yXFbPSgp+lFWEuulyrKA/6RV
 367AAPVqmYtaEMObG59XNh0sl0C6TL1qz1K1zT7UcvtqrE1s9bCAssAZgnFvItFJ+U9u4A/60O
 L4cLmwt2zH2Jo3zbbVlaBsLKwj24x9yrylB7zk0oGxoItxFFS8Gf9PyySJfqQeLbJmR2Pb+W/S
 +zBRfGCHNjpOiHdBIsTvxj52wKxO92GWhrCRhxZ6NlpRJt5nPf3FEN+3OktJcmOxDJ/ZlytbuF
 xdY=
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/pci: try to reserve MCFG areas earlier
To:     Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
CC:     <jgross@suse.com>
References: <1567556431-9809-1-git-send-email-igor.druzhinin@citrix.com>
 <5054ad91-5b87-652c-873a-b31758948bd7@oracle.com>
 <e3114d56-51cd-b973-1ada-f6a60a7e99cc@citrix.com>
 <43b7da04-5c42-80d8-898b-470ee1c91ed2@oracle.com>
 <adefac87-c2b3-b67f-fb4d-d763ce920bef@citrix.com>
 <1695c88d-e5ad-1854-cdef-3cd95c812574@oracle.com>
 <4d3bf854-51de-99e4-9a40-a64c581bdd10@citrix.com>
 <bc3da154-d451-02cf-6154-5e0dc721a6e6@oracle.com>
 <c45b8786-5735-a95d-bc40-61372c326037@citrix.com>
 <43e492ff-f967-7218-65c4-d16581fabea3@oracle.com>
 <416ff4b7-3186-f61a-75fa-bcfc968f8117@citrix.com>
 <df64cd80-d92e-27ad-b1bc-e58184379e50@oracle.com>
 <d281baaf-a6d7-306e-63aa-b84552ac3ea5@citrix.com>
 <9ac1f34b-ea2a-3818-4cbd-a22a9a475dd4@oracle.com>
From:   Igor Druzhinin <igor.druzhinin@citrix.com>
Message-ID: <74c9d2cc-a528-2cec-099e-0d803aeace6f@citrix.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Sep 2019 02:15:13 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9ac1f34b-ea2a-3818-4cbd-a22a9a475dd4@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 10/09/2019 22:19, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 9/10/19 4:36 PM, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
>> On 10/09/2019 18:48, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> On 9/10/19 5:46 AM, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
>>>> On 10/09/2019 02:47, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>> On 9/9/19 5:48 PM, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/09/2019 20:19, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The other question I have is why you think it's worth keeping
>>>>>>> xen_mcfg_late() as a late initcall. How could MCFG info be updated
>>>>>>> between acpi_init() and late_initcalls being run? I'd think it can only
>>>>>>> happen when a new device is hotplugged.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was a precaution against setup_mcfg_map() calls that might add new
>>>>>> areas that are not in MCFG table but for some reason have _CBA method.
>>>>>> It's obviously a "firmware is broken" scenario so I don't have strong
>>>>>> feelings to keep it here. Will prefer to remove in v2 if you want.
>>>>> Isn't setup_mcfg_map() called before the first xen_add_device() which is where you are calling xen_mcfg_late()?
>>>>>
>>>> setup_mcfg_map() calls are done in order of root bus discovery which
>>>> happens *after* the previous root bus has been enumerated. So the order
>>>> is: call setup_mcfg_map() for root bus 0, find that
>>>> pci_mmcfg_late_init() has finished MCFG area registration, perform PCI
>>>> enumeration of bus 0, call xen_add_device() for every device there, call
>>>> setup_mcfg_map() for root bus X, etc.
>>> Ah, yes. Multiple busses.
>>>
>>> If that's the case then why don't we need to call xen_mcfg_late() for
>>> the first device on each bus?
>>>
>> Ideally, yes - we'd like to call it for every bus discovered. But boot
>> time buses are already in MCFG (otherwise system boot might not simply
>> work as Jan pointed out) so it's not strictly required. The only case is
>> a potential PCI bus hot-plug but I'm not sure it actually works in
>> practice and we certainly didn't support it before. It might be solved
>> theoretically by subscribing to acpi_bus_type that is available after
>> acpi_init().
> 
> OK. Then *I think* we can drop late_initcall() but I would really like
> to hear when others think.
> 

Another thing that I implied by "not supporting" but want to explicitly
call out is that currently Xen will refuse reserving any MCFG area
unless it actually existed in MCFG table at boot. I don't clearly
understand reasoning behind it but it might be worth relaxing at least
size matching restriction on Xen side now with this change.

Igor