From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
"Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"Mika Westerberg" <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
"Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>,
"Myron Stowe" <myron.stowe@redhat.com>,
"Juha-Pekka Heikkila" <juhapekka.heikkila@gmail.com>,
"Benoit Grégoire" <benoitg@coeus.ca>,
"Hui Wang" <hui.wang@canonical.com>,
"Kai-Heng Feng" <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com>,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] x86/PCI: Log E820 clipping
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 11:45:26 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220419164526.GA1204065@bhelgaas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7fa9afde-5cc4-2e5d-30ac-ccc6ff4c8039@redhat.com>
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 05:16:44PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 4/19/22 17:03, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 11:59:17AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >> On 1/1/70 01:00, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >>> This is still work-in-progress on the issue of PNP0A03 _CRS methods that
> >>> are buggy or not interpreted correctly by Linux.
> >>>
> >>> The previous try at:
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220304035110.988712-1-helgaas@kernel.org
> >>> caused regressions on some Chromebooks:
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/Yjyv03JsetIsTJxN@sirena.org.uk
> >>>
> >>> This v2 drops the commit that caused the Chromebook regression, so it also
> >>> doesn't fix the issue we were *trying* to fix on Lenovo Yoga and Clevo
> >>> Barebones.
> >>>
> >>> The point of this v2 update is to split the logging patch into (1) a pure
> >>> logging addition and (2) the change to only clip PCI windows, which was
> >>> previously hidden inside the logging patch and not well documented.
> >>>
> >>> Bjorn Helgaas (3):
> >>> x86/PCI: Eliminate remove_e820_regions() common subexpressions
> >>> x86: Log resource clipping for E820 regions
> >>> x86/PCI: Clip only host bridge windows for E820 regions
> >>
> >> Thanks, the entire series looks good to me:
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> >> So what is the plan to actually fix the issue seen on some Lenovo models
> >> and Clevo Barebones ? As I mentioned previously I think that since all
> >> our efforts have failed so far that we should maybe reconsider just
> >> using DMI quirks to ignore the E820 reservation windows for host bridges
> >> on affected models ?
> >
> > I have been resisting DMI quirks but I'm afraid there's no other way.
>
> Well there is the first match adjacent windows returned by _CRS and
> only then do the "covers whole region" exception check. I still
> think that would work at least for the chromebook regression...
Without a crystal clear strategy, I think we're going to be tweaking
the algorithm forever as the _CRS/E820 mix changes. That's why I
think that in the long term, a "use _CRS only, with quirks for
exceptions" strategy will be simplest.
> So do you want me to give that a try; or shall I write a patch
> using DMI quirks. And if we go the DMI quirks, what about
> matching cmdline arguments? If we add matching cmdline arguments,
> which seems to be the sensible thing to do then to allow users
> to test if they need the quirk, then we basically end up with my
> first attempt at fixing this from 6 months ago:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20211005150956.303707-1-hdegoede@redhat.com/
So I think we should go ahead with DMI quirks instead of trying to
make the algorithm smarter, and yes, I think we will need commandline
arguments, probably one to force E820 clipping for future machines,
and one to disable it for old machines.
> > I think the web we've gotten into, where vendors have used E820 to
> > interact with _CRS in incompatible and undocumented ways, is not
> > sustainable.
> >
> > I'm not aware of any spec that says the OS should use E820 to clip
> > things out of _CRS, so I think the long term plan should be to
> > decouple them by default.
>
> Right and AFAICT the reason Windows is getting away with this is
> the same as with the original Dell _CRS has overlap with
> physical RAM issue (1), Linux assigns address to unassigneds BAR-s
> starting with the lowest available address in the bridge window,
> where as Windows assigns addresses from the highest available
> address in the window.
Right, I agree. I'm guessing Chromebooks don't get tested with
Windows at all, so we don't even have that level of testing to help.
> So the real fix here might very well be
> to rework the BAR assignment code to switch to fill the window
> from the top rather then from the bottom. AFAICT all issues where
> excluding _E820 reservations have helped are with _E820 - bridge
> window overlaps at the bottom of the window.
>
> IOW these are really all bugs in the _CRS method for the bridge,
> which Windows does not hit because it never actually uses
> the lowest address(es) of the _CRS returned window.
Yes. We actually did try this
(https://git.kernel.org/linus/1af3c2e45e7a), but unfortunately we had
to revert it. Even more unfortunately, the revert
(https://git.kernel.org/linus/5e52f1c5e85f) doesn't have any details
about what went wrong.
> 1) At least I read in either a bugzilla, or email thread about
> this that Windows allocating bridge window space from the top
> was assumed to be why Windows was not impacted.
>
> > Straw man:
> >
> > - Disable E820 clipping by default.
> >
> > - Add a quirk to enable E820 clipping for machines older than X,
> > e.g., 2023, to avoid breaking machines that currently work.
> >
> > - Add quirks to disable E820 clipping for individual machines like
> > the Lenovo and Clevos that predate X, but E820 clipping breaks
> > them.
> >
> > - Add quirks to enable E820 clipping for individual machines like
> > the Chromebooks (and probably machines we don't know about yet)
> > that have devices that consume part of _CRS but are not
> > enumerable.
> >
> > - Communicate this to OEMs to try to prevent future machines that
> > need quirks.
> >
> > Bjorn
> >
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-19 16:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-14 18:22 [PATCH v2 0/3] x86/PCI: Log E820 clipping Bjorn Helgaas
2022-04-14 18:22 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] x86/PCI: Eliminate remove_e820_regions() common subexpressions Bjorn Helgaas
2022-04-14 18:22 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] x86: Log resource clipping for E820 regions Bjorn Helgaas
2022-04-15 14:12 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-04-14 18:22 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] x86/PCI: Clip only host bridge windows " Bjorn Helgaas
2022-04-19 9:59 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] x86/PCI: Log E820 clipping Hans de Goede
2022-04-19 15:03 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2022-04-19 15:16 ` Hans de Goede
2022-04-19 16:45 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2022-05-02 12:24 ` Hans de Goede
2022-05-02 20:32 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2022-05-05 15:03 ` Hans de Goede
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220419164526.GA1204065@bhelgaas \
--to=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=benoitg@coeus.ca \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=hui.wang@canonical.com \
--cc=juhapekka.heikkila@gmail.com \
--cc=kai.heng.feng@canonical.com \
--cc=kw@linux.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=myron.stowe@redhat.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).