On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 04:21:41PM +0000, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 08:20:35AM +0000, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>> On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 04:40:50PM +0100, Shameer Kolothum wrote:
> > >>>>> @@ -2909,6 +2909,19 @@ static void
> > >>>> pci_device_get_iommu_bus_devfn(PCIDevice *dev,
> > >>>>> }
> > >>>>> }
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> + /*
> > >>>>> + * When multiple PCI Express Root Buses are defined using
> > >>>>> + pxb-
> > >>>> pcie,
> > >>>>> + * the IOMMU configuration may be specific to each root bus.
> > >>>> However,
> > >>>>> + * pxb-pcie acts as a special root complex whose parent
> > >>>>> + is
> > >>>> effectively
> > >>>>> + * the default root complex(pcie.0). Ensure that we retrieve
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>> + * correct IOMMU ops(if any) in such cases.
> > >>>>> + */
> > >>>>> + if (pci_bus_is_express(iommu_bus) &&
> > >>>> pci_bus_is_root(iommu_bus)) {
> > >>>>> + if (!iommu_bus->iommu_per_bus && parent_bus-
> > >>>>> iommu_per_bus) {
> > >>>>> + break;
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Mind elaborating why the current bus must unset iommu_per_bus
> > >> while
> > >>>> its parent sets iommu_per_bus?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> My understanding is that for a pxb-pcie we should set
> > iommu_per_bus
> > >>>> but for its parent (the default root complex) we should unset its
> > >>>> iommu_per_bus?
> > >>>
> > >>> Well, for new arm-smmuv3 dev you need an associated pcie root
> > >>> complex. Either the default pcie.0 or a pxb-pcie one. And as I
> > >>> mentioned in my reply to the other thread(patch #2) and commit log
> > >> here,
> > >>> the pxb-pcie is special extra root complex in Qemu which has pcie.0
> > >>> has parent bus.
> > >>>
> > >>> The above pci_device_get_iommu_bus_devfn() at present, iterate over
> > >> the
> > >>> parent_dev if it is set and returns the parent_bus IOMMU ops even if
> > >>> the associated pxb-pcie bus doesn't have any IOMMU. This creates
> > >>> problem for a case that is described here in the cover letter here,
> > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20250708154055.101012-1-
> > >> shameerali.kolothum.th...@huawei.com/
> > >>>
> > >>> (Please see "Major changes from v4:" section)
> > >>>
> > >>> To address that issue, this patch introduces an new helper function
> > >>> to
> > >> specify that
> > >>> the IOMMU ops are specific to the associated root
> > >> complex(iommu_per_bus) and
> > >>> use that to return the correct IOMMU ops.
> > >>>
> > >>> Hope with that context it is clear now.
> > >>
> > >> Hmm, I was not questioning the context, I get what the patch is
> > >> supposed to do.
> > >>
> > >> I was asking the logic that is unclear to me why it breaks when:
> > >> !pxb-pcie->iommu_per_bus && pcie.0->iommu_per_bus
> > >>
> > >> Or in which case pcie.0 would be set to iommu_per_bus=true?
> > >
> > > Yes. Consider the example I gave in cover letter,
> > >
> > > -device arm-smmuv3,primary-bus=pcie.0,id=smmuv3.1 \ -device
> > > virtio-net-pci,bus=pcie.0,netdev=net0,id=virtionet.0 \ -device
> > > pxb-pcie,id=pcie.1,bus_nr=8,bus=pcie.0 \ -device
> > > arm-smmuv3,primary-bus=pcie.1,id=smmuv3.2 \ -device
> > > pcie-root-port,id=pcie.port1,chassis=2,bus=pcie.1 \ -device
> > > virtio-net-pci,bus=pcie.port1,netdev=net1,id=virtionet.1
> > >
> > > pcie.0 is behind new SMMUv3 dev(smmuv3.1) and has iommu_per_bus
> > set.
> > > pcie.1 has no SMMv3U and iommu_per_bus is not set for it.
> > pcie.1 doesn't? then what is this line saying/meaning?:
> > -device arm-smmuv3,primary-bus=pcie.1,id=smmuv3.2 \
> >
> > I read that as an smmuv3 attached to pcie.1, with an id of smmuv3.2; just
> > as I read this config:
> > -device arm-smmuv3,primary-bus=pcie.0,id=smmuv3.1 \ as an smmuv3
> > attached to pcie.0 iwth id smmuv3.1
>
> Oops..I forgot to delete that from the config:
> This is what I meant,
>
> -device arm-smmuv3,primary-bus=pcie.0,id=smmuv3.1 \
> -device virtio-net-pci,bus=pcie.0,netdev=net0,id=virtionet.0 \
> -device pxb-pcie,id=pcie.1,bus_nr=8,bus=pcie.0 \
> -device pcie-root-port,id=pcie.port1,chassis=2,bus=pcie.1 \
> -device virtio-net-pci,bus=pcie.port1,netdev=net1,id=virtionet.1 \
So, the logic is trying to avoid:
"iommu_bus = parent_bus;"
for a case that parent_bus (pcie.0) having its own IOMMU.
But shouldn't it be just "if (parent_bus->iommu_per_bus)"?
Why does the current iommu_bus->iommu_per_bus has to be unset?
I think "iommu_bus = parent_bus" should be avoided too even if
the current iommu_bus has its own IOMMU, i.e. iommu_per_bus is
set?
Thanks
Nicolin
