Re: [PATCH 1/2] pci: release that leaf bridge' resource that is not big -v11

[Yinghai]

On Nov 25, 2009, at 10:43 PM, Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> wrote:

> Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
> > > Hi Yinghai,
> > >
> > > I would like to reconfirm what is the problem you're trying to solve
> > > before reviewing and testing the additional patch. To be honest,  
> > > your
> > > patch looks more and more complicated and it is becoming difficult
> > > for me to review and test it.
> > the real problem:
> > 1. boot time:
> > BIOS separate IO range between several IOHs, and on some slots,  
> > BIOS assign the resource to the bridge, but stop
> > assigning resource to the device under that bridge, because the  
> > device need big resource.
> > so patch1 is trying to a. pci assign unassign and record the failed  
> > device resource.
> > b. clear the BIOS assigned resource of the parent bridge of fail  
> > device
> > c. go back and call pci assign unsigned
> > d. if it still fail, will go up more bridges. and clear and try  
> > again.
> > 2. hotplug:
> > BIOS separate IO range between several IOHs, and on some slots,  
> > BIOS assign the resource to every bridge. (8M)
> > but when insert one card that big resource, the card can not get  
> > resource. because kernel will not touch the bridge resource.
> > so patch2 is trying to
> > a. assign resource to devices with that slot. and record fail devices
> > b. if there is some failed, will clear sepcifically io port of  
> > bridge, or mmio of bridge, or mmio pref of bridge.
> > c. try to assign the parent bridge of the slot.
> > so it will keep original assigned resource by BIOS if possible.
> > and you have tested patch1 and patch2 in V11, but said patch1 may  
> > have shrinking resource problem.
> > the patch3 is addressing the patch1 that could shrinking resource  
> > for non-pcie hotplug bridge...
>
> Thank you for the explanation. The patch3 seems to solve my concern.
>
> Your patch only touch the leaf bridge at the 2nd try of resource
> assignment. IIRC, this behavior is to prevent from shrinking bridge
> resources. Am I correct? I'm not sure but I think we don't need this
> behavior because now that we have another mechanism to prevent
> from shrinking bridge resource.
> > >

Third patch will only try to increase the bridge res

Try num still default to 5 , it could help other case

Can you send me whole bootlog  ?

Thanks

Yinghai
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/