linux-pci.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Krishna Chaitanya Chundru <quic_krichai@quicinc.com>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
Cc: helgaas@kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	quic_vbadigan@quicinc.com, quic_ramkri@quicinc.com,
	swboyd@chromium.org, "Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	"Saheed O. Bolarinwa" <refactormyself@gmail.com>,
	"Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>,
	"Rajat Jain" <rajatja@google.com>,
	vidyas@nvidia.com, kenny@panix.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] PCI/ASPM: Update LTR threshold based upon reported max latencies
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2022 15:29:46 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <47d89a85-5f10-ebf9-1d62-fb886319b2c4@quicinc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220602082938.GA4936@thinkpad>


On 6/2/2022 1:59 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 05:57:53PM +0530, Krishna Chaitanya Chundru wrote:
>> [+cc kenny, vidya]
>>
>> On 6/1/2022 5:53 PM, Krishna chaitanya chundru wrote:
>>> In ASPM driver, LTR threshold scale and value is updating based on
> s/is/are
>
> s/updating/updated
>
>>> tcommon_mode and t_poweron values. In kioxia NVMe L1.2 is failing due to
>>> LTR threshold scale and value is greater values than max snoop/non-snoop
> s/is/are
>
>>> value.
>>>
>>> Based on PCIe r4.1, sec 5.5.1, L1.2 substate must be entered when
>>> reported snoop/no-snoop values is greather than or equal to
>>> LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD value.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Prasad Malisetty  <quic_pmaliset@quicinc.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Krishna chaitanya chundru <quic_krichai@quicinc.com>
> If you are inheriting the patch from Prasad, then you should still give the
> authorship to him (unless the patch has changed significantly). You can add
> your S-o-b tag to convey that you are carrying the patch from him.
Thanks mani for pointing this, I will modify this in next patch.
>>> ---
>>>
>>> I am takking this patch forward as prasad is no more working with our org.
>>>
>>> Changes since v2:
>>> 	- Replaced LTRME logic with max snoop/no-snoop latencies check.
>>> Changes since v1:
>>> 	- Added missing variable declaration in v1 patch
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>    1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
>>> index a96b742..4a15e50 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
>>> @@ -465,10 +465,19 @@ static void aspm_calc_l1ss_info(struct pcie_link_state *link,
>>>    	u32 ctl1 = 0, ctl2 = 0;
>>>    	u32 pctl1, pctl2, cctl1, cctl2;
>>>    	u32 pl1_2_enables, cl1_2_enables;
>>> +	int ltr;
> This could be u16 too.
Will change in the next patch
>>> +	u16 max_snoop_lat = 0, max_nosnoop_lat = 0;
> No need to initialize these variables.
I will update these in next patch.
>>>    	if (!(link->aspm_support & ASPM_STATE_L1_2_MASK))
>>>    		return;
>>> +	ltr = pci_find_ext_capability(child, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_LTR);
>>> +	if (!ltr)
>>> +		return;
> Is this capability implemented always?

Based up on spec 4.1, sec 5.5 Ports that support the L1.2 substate for 
ASPM L1 must support this.

And there is already a check in this function  if there is no L1.2 
support the function is returning.

>>> +
>>> +	pci_read_config_word(child, ltr + PCI_LTR_MAX_SNOOP_LAT, &max_snoop_lat);
>>> +	pci_read_config_word(child, ltr + PCI_LTR_MAX_NOSNOOP_LAT, &max_nosnoop_lat);
>>> +
>>>    	/* Choose the greater of the two Port Common_Mode_Restore_Times */
>>>    	val1 = (parent_l1ss_cap & PCI_L1SS_CAP_CM_RESTORE_TIME) >> 8;
>>>    	val2 = (child_l1ss_cap & PCI_L1SS_CAP_CM_RESTORE_TIME) >> 8;
>>> @@ -501,7 +510,18 @@ static void aspm_calc_l1ss_info(struct pcie_link_state *link,
>>>    	 */
>>>    	l1_2_threshold = 2 + 4 + t_common_mode + t_power_on;
>>>    	encode_l12_threshold(l1_2_threshold, &scale, &value);
>>> -	ctl1 |= t_common_mode << 8 | scale << 29 | value << 16;
>>> +
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * If the max snoop and no snoop latencies are '0', then avoid updating scale
>>> +	 * and value.
>>> +	 *
> This looks fine but...
>
>>> +	 * Based on PCIe r4.1, sec 5.5.1, L1.2 substate must be entered when reported
>>> +	 * snoop/no-snoop values is greather than or equal to LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD value.
> s/is/are
>
> What about this? What if the snoop/nosnoop latencies are not equal to zero and
> lower than LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD?
>
> Thanks,
> Mani

Will address this in next patch.

Thanks,

Krishna Chaitanya.

>>> +	 */
>>> +	if ((max_snoop_lat == 0) && (max_nosnoop_lat == 0))
>>> +		ctl1 |= t_common_mode << 8;
>>> +	else
>>> +		ctl1 |= t_common_mode << 8 | scale << 29 | value << 16;
>>>    	/* Some broken devices only support dword access to L1 SS */
>>>    	pci_read_config_dword(parent, parent->l1ss + PCI_L1SS_CTL1, &pctl1);

  reply	other threads:[~2022-06-02 10:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-03-07 18:59 [PATCH v2] [RFC PATCH] PCI: Update LTR threshold based on LTRME bit Prasad Malisetty
2022-03-17 19:07 ` Stephen Boyd
2022-04-05  6:24   ` Prasad Malisetty (Temp)
2022-04-05 18:57     ` Stephen Boyd
2022-04-05 16:08 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2022-04-12 22:46 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2022-06-01 12:23 ` [PATCH v3] PCI/ASPM: Update LTR threshold based upon reported max latencies Krishna chaitanya chundru
2022-06-01 12:27   ` Krishna Chaitanya Chundru
2022-06-02  8:29     ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2022-06-02  9:59       ` Krishna Chaitanya Chundru [this message]
2022-06-03  7:54 ` [PATCH v4] " Krishna chaitanya chundru
2022-06-08 22:22   ` Stephen Boyd
2022-06-10  5:08   ` [PATCH v5] " Krishna chaitanya chundru
2022-06-15 13:23     ` Krishna Chaitanya Chundru
2022-07-15  8:28       ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2022-07-15 11:28         ` Krishna Chaitanya Chundru
2022-06-15 17:39     ` Manivannan Sadhasivam

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=47d89a85-5f10-ebf9-1d62-fb886319b2c4@quicinc.com \
    --to=quic_krichai@quicinc.com \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=kenny@panix.com \
    --cc=kw@linux.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org \
    --cc=quic_ramkri@quicinc.com \
    --cc=quic_vbadigan@quicinc.com \
    --cc=rajatja@google.com \
    --cc=refactormyself@gmail.com \
    --cc=swboyd@chromium.org \
    --cc=vidyas@nvidia.com \
    /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).