From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC4D4C433E7 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 22:41:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 889DB22203 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 22:41:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="BdoZ0/2x" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731906AbgJPWle (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Oct 2020 18:41:34 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45918 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728616AbgJPWld (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Oct 2020 18:41:33 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-x842.google.com (mail-qt1-x842.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::842]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AF86C061755 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 15:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x842.google.com with SMTP id q26so2571150qtb.5 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 15:41:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZqxRcER9BR6H13pTOkmT704wn1jrz4C1jfjWUr6qbWA=; b=BdoZ0/2xhksW+OoiR8M8hhsOoDMlP6rUC7HYfE6a3bMSm+LOy9+//bJq3EYOJGPvMo tcSLX+OlvpKL3r3nTOAPMTWWO8857eUHSeMUpXEvk6a0T/fZFITszi5AlOdnArh5iSVn 5LfoTR1/za08NdLlmaU/rebW4LIehdZMrnTH8QWq2GOybWn75SVI26ke/jAtEVHoI1pO N1hGSM6hXd5RREItJ4DK+PxEXzryHW1dF3WGyuZuN8U2tsr0Vivf4PVMzervBepV3cEn pSjifARMGpfaU3gmZfmtmukOT1Ad+Xmk0vW4T3v7XeXV1GENmSjYc9iKR/VbQ3rhV+/6 xOng== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZqxRcER9BR6H13pTOkmT704wn1jrz4C1jfjWUr6qbWA=; b=Ck0D2cuYihkC799UgEJzzRQ0ATJT3hmfdB31cIngwgwHm7MNzJox0r6AoyV3zJWpV8 +VRIbWUq9mmN6JhTzL/qbHm3mDTcRSZ2nu2yBkxyoDJTxx/BJtezIlyQA2ZlL0q1ZKKH qoYjjtHdpXTjMTWf92K1XxrBdKhwUNwZAOTVjqakTiv1gcbHtx65u036OjXWR6niZOWC RoRKT9TXgcY923CPy+87Rml5IIGq4K/aN8qdX1WddISOfkgnBVOVV+Cy9mGjm/W1Tsra aYN6ggRQKWoHMQpfH3ahPLNKrE6PCDZ+b6xPtX8qVeEn98SxwVchhjNBW7RD4fqbgRtQ bpsQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531/YsJzYPufru9chODzov9GzRwEOIWt6JCy1HWccC+zbziE8weL mGgJlMuym2vhAQZxH9k1Vapsnj87xDwk8dkKF6E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyBtQ0B7uJlH5vKERZuKoJPUDfPwYeFyp/0bpZ1N/iT9jgxL7hkJMEBjXhUZzyHX+nXWa9HThKUDdDZBnHxjJU= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:3ac4:: with SMTP id x62mr5478549qte.347.1602888092584; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 15:41:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201016212846.GA109479@bjorn-Precision-5520> In-Reply-To: <20201016212846.GA109479@bjorn-Precision-5520> From: Ian Kumlien Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2020 00:41:21 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use maximum latency when determining L1 ASPM To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Kai-Heng Feng , linux-pci , Alexander Duyck , "Saheed O. Bolarinwa" , Puranjay Mohan Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 11:28 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 03:33:17PM +0200, Ian Kumlien wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 10:34 AM Kai-Heng Feng > > wrote: > > > > On Oct 12, 2020, at 18:20, Ian Kumlien wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 6:13 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > >> OK, now we're getting close. We just need to flesh out the > > > >> justification. We need: > > > >> > > > >> - Tidy subject line. Use "git log --oneline drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c" > > > >> and follow the example. > > > > > > > > Will do > > > > > > > >> - Description of the problem. I think it's poor bandwidth on your > > > >> Intel I211 device, but we don't have the complete picture because > > > >> that NIC is 03:00.0, which doesn't appear above at all. > > > > > > > > I think we'll use Kai-Hengs issue, since it's actually more related to > > > > the change itself... > > > > > > > > Mine is a side effect while Kai-Heng is actually hitting an issue > > > > caused by the bug. > > > > > > I filed a bug here: > > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=209671 > > > > Thanks! > > Sigh. I feel like I'm just not getting anywhere here. I still do not > have a "before" and "after" set of lspci output. > > Kai-Heng's bugzilla has two sets of output, but one is a working > config with CONFIG_PCIEASPM_DEFAULT=y and the other is a working > config with Ian's patch applied and CONFIG_PCIEASPM_POWERSAVE=y. > > Comparing them doesn't show the effect of Ian's patch; it shows the > combined effect of Ian's patch and the CONFIG_PCIEASPM_POWERSAVE=y > change. I'm not really interested in spending a few hours trying to > reverse-engineer the important changes. > > Can you please, please, collect these on your system, Ian? I assume > that you can easily collect it once without your patch, when you see > poor I211 NIC performance but the system is otherwise working. And > you can collect it again *with* your patch. Same Kconfig, same > *everything* except adding your patch. Yeah I can do that, but I would like the changes output from the latest patch suggestion running on Kai-Heng's system so we can actually see what it does... > Bjorn