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=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS 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 05200C4363A for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 18:30:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8725224640 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 18:30:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1603391434; bh=Tfgw8a9yJa1Bptc6TRFHmxnsWQUQEFem9ZSdTO+hYPQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=rdE1d2tvUq64UfyPeeBkccK1eXB52Q1kLcYxx18s3IIAnTyIU3zDpDyr7qQTs8BZW azN+j3sTrhW53puuOE7zgiW8tzu/fRU6Ui+JpHhUaeKK/bciK4TEE1mF6QkIE+EpxO ejLwzAg8AtqeJtVCJOwcIfegGt9OBRpcc2jemoSc= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S369692AbgJVSad (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:30:33 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:56540 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2902394AbgJVSad (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:30:33 -0400 Received: from localhost (170.sub-72-107-125.myvzw.com [72.107.125.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 725852417D; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 18:30:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1603391432; bh=Tfgw8a9yJa1Bptc6TRFHmxnsWQUQEFem9ZSdTO+hYPQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=i15iiJFXwJaHq5Q5+fNY4YQfC868Ug6sLHCxzv+DV5JLSATluG/lSXoAjc4EOrato u4gUKHmZPhmAsRP9JJua5WTKYsaH9SiPwptt0D6iwQKYaHQeJHHmfHEpte5dkBVMk1 7xjnESjmteasZzCoqr4dxk4FhWyxsjc/BX7TMmfU= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 13:30:30 -0500 From: Bjorn Helgaas To: Ian Kumlien Cc: Kai-Heng Feng , linux-pci , Alexander Duyck , "Saheed O. Bolarinwa" , Puranjay Mohan Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use maximum latency when determining L1 ASPM Message-ID: <20201022183030.GA513862@bjorn-Precision-5520> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 05:41:45PM +0200, Ian Kumlien wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 5:37 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 01:35:27PM +0200, Ian Kumlien wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 12:41 AM Ian Kumlien wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 11:28 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > > > > 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... > > > > > > Is: > > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=209725 > > > > That's a great start. Can you attach the patch to the bugzilla too, > > please, so it is self-contained? > > > > And also the analysis of the path from Root Port to Endpoint, with the > > exit latencies of each link, the acceptable latency of the endpoint > > and > > > > (1) the computation done by the existing code that results in > > "latency < acceptable" that means we can enable ASPM, and > > > > (2) the correct computation per spec that results in > > "latency > acceptable" so we cannot enable ASPM? > > > > This analysis will be the core of the commit log, and the bugzilla > > with lspci info is the supporting evidence. > > Ok, will do, there will be some bio-latency though > > Were you ok with the pr_cont output per endpoint? Haven't looked at that yet. Will respond to that patch when I do.