On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 03:50:14PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 14:49:09 -0500
> Ira Weiny <ira.we...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Li, Ming4 wrote:
> > > On 10/8/2024 7:16 AM, ira.we...@intel.com wrote:
> > > > From: Navneet Singh <navneet.si...@intel.com>
> > > >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Navneet Singh <navneet.si...@intel.com>
> > > > Co-developed-by: Ira Weiny <ira.we...@intel.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.we...@intel.com>
> > > >
> > > Hi Ira,
> > >
> > > I guess you missed my comments for V3, I comment it again for this patch.
> > >
> >
> > Apologies. Yes I totally missed your reply. :-(
> >
> > >
> > > > +static bool extents_contain(struct cxl_dax_region *cxlr_dax,
> > > > + struct cxl_endpoint_decoder *cxled,
> > > > + struct range *new_range)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct device *extent_device;
> > > > + struct match_data md = {
> > > > + .cxled = cxled,
> > > > + .new_range = new_range,
> > > > + };
> > > > +
> > > > + extent_device = device_find_child(&cxlr_dax->dev, &md,
> > > > match_contains);
> > > > + if (!extent_device)
> > > > + return false;
> > > > +
> > > > + put_device(extent_device);
> > > could use __free(put_device) to drop this 'put_device(extent_device)'
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > > > + return true;
> > > > +}
> > > [...]
> > > > +static bool extents_overlap(struct cxl_dax_region *cxlr_dax,
> > > > + struct cxl_endpoint_decoder *cxled,
> > > > + struct range *new_range)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct device *extent_device;
> > > > + struct match_data md = {
> > > > + .cxled = cxled,
> > > > + .new_range = new_range,
> > > > + };
> > > > +
> > > > + extent_device = device_find_child(&cxlr_dax->dev, &md,
> > > > match_overlaps);
> > > > + if (!extent_device)
> > > > + return false;
> > > > +
> > > > + put_device(extent_device);
> > > Same as above.
> >
> > Done.
> >
> > > > + return true;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > [...]
> > > > +static int cxl_send_dc_response(struct cxl_memdev_state *mds, int
> > > > opcode,
> > > > + struct xarray *extent_array, int cnt)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct cxl_mailbox *cxl_mbox = &mds->cxlds.cxl_mbox;
> > > > + struct cxl_mbox_dc_response *p;
> > > > + struct cxl_mbox_cmd mbox_cmd;
> > > > + struct cxl_extent *extent;
> > > > + unsigned long index;
> > > > + u32 pl_index;
> > > > + int rc;
> > > > +
> > > > + size_t pl_size = struct_size(p, extent_list, cnt);
> > > > + u32 max_extents = cnt;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* May have to use more bit on response. */
> > > > + if (pl_size > cxl_mbox->payload_size) {
> > > > + max_extents = (cxl_mbox->payload_size - sizeof(*p)) /
> > > > + sizeof(struct updated_extent_list);
> > > > + pl_size = struct_size(p, extent_list, max_extents);
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + struct cxl_mbox_dc_response *response __free(kfree) =
> > > > + kzalloc(pl_size,
> > > > GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > + if (!response)
> > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > > +
> > > > + pl_index = 0;
> > > > + xa_for_each(extent_array, index, extent) {
> > > > +
> > > > + response->extent_list[pl_index].dpa_start =
> > > > extent->start_dpa;
> > > > + response->extent_list[pl_index].length = extent->length;
> > > > + pl_index++;
> > > > + response->extent_list_size = cpu_to_le32(pl_index);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (pl_index == max_extents) {
> > > > + mbox_cmd = (struct cxl_mbox_cmd) {
> > > > + .opcode = opcode,
> > > > + .size_in = struct_size(response,
> > > > extent_list,
> > > > + pl_index),
> > > > + .payload_in = response,
> > > > + };
> > > > +
> > > > + response->flags = 0;
> > > > + if (pl_index < cnt)
> > > > + response->flags &= CXL_DCD_EVENT_MORE;
> > >
> > > It should be 'response->flags |= CXL_DCD_EVENT_MORE' here.
> >
> > Ah yea. Good catch.
> >
> > >
> > > Another issue is if 'cnt' is N times bigger than 'max_extents'(e,g.
> > > cnt=20, max_extents=10). all responses will be sent in this
> > > xa_for_each(), and CXL_DCD_EVENT_MORE will be set in the last response
> > > but it should not be set in these cases.
> > >
> >
> > Ah yes. cnt must be decremented. As I looked at the patch just now the
> >
> > if (cnt == 0 || pl_index)
> >
> > ... seemed very wrong to me. That change masked this bug.
> >
> > This should fix it:
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/mbox.c b/drivers/cxl/core/mbox.c
> > index d66beec687a0..99200274dea8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cxl/core/mbox.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/mbox.c
> > @@ -1119,10 +1119,11 @@ static int cxl_send_dc_response(struct
> > cxl_memdev_state *mds, int opcode,
> > if (rc)
> > return rc;
> > pl_index = 0;
> > + cnt -= pl_index;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > - if (cnt == 0 || pl_index) {
>
> I thought this cnt == 0 check was to deal with the no valid
> extents case where an empty reply is needed.
Agreed. Based on current code logic, there are two cases that cnt == 0:
1. no extent is accepted so cnt is passed as 0;
2. cnt was decreased to 0 and response has already been sent.
For case 1, we still need to send a response with zero extents;
For case 2, we do not need to handle.
Fan
>
>
> > + if (pl_index) {
> > mbox_cmd = (struct cxl_mbox_cmd) {
> > .opcode = opcode,
> > .size_in = struct_size(response, extent_list,
> >
> >
> > Thank you, and sorry again for missing your feedback.
> >
> > Ira
> >
> > [snip]
> >
>
--
Fan Ni
