linux-pci.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Linux PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] PCI / PM: Check for error when reading PME status
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 01:26:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2341382.rHjnX2mYrU@kreacher> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190806133638.GQ151852@google.com>

On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 3:36:38 PM CEST Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 11:02:51PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 10:52 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > pci_check_pme_status() reads the Power Management capability to determine
> > > whether a device has generated a PME.  The capability is in config space,
> > > which is accessible in D0, D1, D2, and D3hot, but not in D3cold.
> > >
> > > If we call pci_check_pme_status() on a device that's in D3cold, config
> > > reads fail and return ~0 data, which we erroneously interpreted as "the
> > > device has generated a PME".
> > >
> > > 000dd5316e1c ("PCI: Do not poll for PME if the device is in D3cold")
> > > avoided many of these problems by avoiding pci_check_pme_status() if we
> > > think the device is in D3cold.  However, it is not a complete fix because
> > > the device may go to D3cold after we check its power state but before
> > > pci_check_pme_status() reads the Power Management Status Register.
> > >
> > > Return false ("device has not generated a PME") if we get an error response
> > > reading the Power Management Status Register.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 000dd5316e1c ("PCI: Do not poll for PME if the device is in D3cold")
> > > Fixes: 71a83bd727cc ("PCI/PM: add runtime PM support to PCIe port")
> > > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/pci/pci.c | 3 +++
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > > index 984171d40858..af6a97d7012b 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > > @@ -2008,6 +2008,9 @@ bool pci_check_pme_status(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > >
> > >         pmcsr_pos = dev->pm_cap + PCI_PM_CTRL;
> > >         pci_read_config_word(dev, pmcsr_pos, &pmcsr);
> > > +       if (pmcsr == (u16) PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE)
> > > +               return false;
> > 
> > No, sorry.
> > 
> > We tried that and it didn't work.
> > 
> > pcie_pme_handle_request() depends on this returning "true" for all
> > bits set, as from its perspective "device is not accessible" may very
> > well mean "device may have signaled PME".
> 
> Right, it's obviously wrong in the case of devices that advertise
> D3cold in PME_Support, i.e., devices that can generate PME even with
> main power off.  Also, we may want to try to wake up devices if the
> config read fails for a reason other than the device being in D3cold.
> 
> What I don't like about the current code is that it checks
> PCI_PM_CTRL_PME_STATUS in data that may be completely bogus.

Whether or not the other bits in the register make sense doesn't
matter here.  Only the PME_STATUS bit matters.

> Do you think it would be better to do something like this:
> 
>   pci_read_config_word(dev, pmcsr_pos, &pmcsr);
>   if (pmcsr == (u16) PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE) {
>     if (pci_pme_capable(dev, PCI_PM_CAP_PME_D3cold))
>       return true;
>     return false;
>   }
> 
> or maybe this:
> 
>   pci_read_config_word(dev, pmcsr_pos, &pmcsr);
>   if (pmcsr == (u16) PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE)
>     return true;

In this case it still would be prudent to check PME_ENABLE before
returning true and so there is no practical difference between
ERROR_RESPONSE and the valid data with PME_STATUS set.

Except that in the ERROR_RESPONSE case we may as well avoid the
PMCSR write which is not going to make a difference.

> We should get PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE pretty reliably from devices in
> D3cold, so the first possibility would cover that case.
>
> But since pci_check_pme_status() basically returns a hint ("true"
> means a device *may* have generated a PME), and even if the hint is
> wrong, the worst that happens is an unnecessary wakeup, maybe the
> second possibility is safer.
> 
> What do you think?

So if you really want to avoid the PMCSR write in the ERROR_RESPONSE case,
something like this can be done IMO:

 			return false;
 
 	/* Clear PME status. */
-	pmcsr |= PCI_PM_CTRL_PME_STATUS;
 	if (pmcsr & PCI_PM_CTRL_PME_ENABLE) {
+		if (pmcsr == (u16) PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE)
+			return true;
+
 		/* Disable PME to avoid interrupt flood. */
 		pmcsr &= ~PCI_PM_CTRL_PME_ENABLE;
 		ret = true;





  reply	other threads:[~2019-08-13 23:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-08-05 20:52 [PATCH 0/5] PCI: Add PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE, check for errors Bjorn Helgaas
2019-08-05 20:52 ` [PATCH 1/5] PCI: Add PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE definition Bjorn Helgaas
2019-08-05 21:16   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-08-05 20:52 ` [PATCH 2/5] PCI / PM: Return error when changing power state from D3cold Bjorn Helgaas
2019-08-05 21:15   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-08-05 20:52 ` [PATCH 3/5] PCI / PM: Check for error when reading PME status Bjorn Helgaas
2019-08-05 21:02   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-08-06 13:36     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2019-08-13 23:26       ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2019-08-14  1:15         ` Bjorn Helgaas
2019-08-05 20:52 ` [PATCH 4/5] PCI / PM: Check for error when reading Power State Bjorn Helgaas
2019-08-05 21:09   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-08-09 22:01     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2019-08-13 22:59       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-08-14  1:08         ` Bjorn Helgaas
2019-08-05 20:52 ` [PATCH 5/5] PCI / PM: Decode D3cold power state correctly Bjorn Helgaas
2019-08-05 21:14   ` Rafael J. Wysocki

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=2341382.rHjnX2mYrU@kreacher \
    --to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=keith.busch@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
    --cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=rafael@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).