linux-pci.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ian Kumlien <ian.kumlien@gmail.com>
To: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com>,
	linux-pci <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>,
	"Saheed O. Bolarinwa" <refactormyself@gmail.com>,
	Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] PCI/ASPM: Use the path max in L1 ASPM latency check
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 22:49:37 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAA85sZs_9hUFU233qBeZenyheBaLyhjGFCm+zFHgEseL=JuC3A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201024205548.1837770-1-ian.kumlien@gmail.com>

Is this ok? Or what's missing?

On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 10:55 PM Ian Kumlien <ian.kumlien@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Make pcie_aspm_check_latency comply with the PCIe spec, specifically:
> "5.4.1.2.2. Exit from the L1 State"
>
> Which makes it clear that each switch is required to initiate a
> transition within 1μs from receiving it, accumulating this latency and
> then we have to wait for the slowest link along the path before
> entering L0 state from L1.
>
> The current code doesn't take the maximum latency into account.
>
> From the example:
>    +----------------+
>    |                |
>    |  Root complex  |
>    |                |
>    |    +-----+     |
>    |    |32 μs|     |
>    +----------------+
>            |
>            |  Link 1
>            |
>    +----------------+
>    |     |8 μs|     |
>    |     +----+     |
>    |    Switch A    |
>    |     +----+     |
>    |     |8 μs|     |
>    +----------------+
>            |
>            |  Link 2
>            |
>    +----------------+
>    |    |32 μs|     |
>    |    +-----+     |
>    |    Switch B    |
>    |    +-----+     |
>    |    |32 μs|     |
>    +----------------+
>            |
>            |  Link 3
>            |
>    +----------------+
>    |     |8μs|      |
>    |     +---+      |
>    |   Endpoint C   |
>    |                |
>    |                |
>    +----------------+
>
> Links 1, 2 and 3 are all in L1 state - endpoint C initiates the
> transition to L0 at time T. Since switch B takes 32 μs to exit L1 on
> it's ports, Link 3 will transition to L0 at T+32 (longest time
> considering T+8 for endpoint C and T+32 for switch B).
>
> Switch B is required to initiate a transition from the L1 state on it's
> upstream port after no more than 1 μs from the beginning of the
> transition from L1 state on the downstream port. Therefore, transition from
> L1 to L0 will begin on link 2 at T+1, this will cascade up the path.
>
> The path will exit L1 at T+34.
>
> On my specific system:
> 03:00.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation I211 Gigabit Network Connection (rev 03)
> 04:00.0 Unassigned class [ff00]: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. Device 816e (rev 1a)
>
>             Exit latency       Acceptable latency
> Tree:       L1       L0s       L1       L0s
> ----------  -------  -----     -------  ------
> 00:01.2     <32 us   -
> | 01:00.0   <32 us   -
> |- 02:03.0  <32 us   -
> | \03:00.0  <16 us   <2us      <64 us   <512ns
> |
> \- 02:04.0  <32 us   -
>   \04:00.0  <64 us   unlimited <64 us   <512ns
>
> 04:00.0's latency is the same as the maximum it allows so as we walk the path
> the first switchs startup latency will pass the acceptable latency limit
> for the link, and as a side-effect it fixes my issues with 03:00.0.
>
> Without this patch, 03:00.0 misbehaves and only gives me ~40 mbit/s over
> links with 6 or more hops. With this patch I'm back to a maximum of ~933
> mbit/s.
>
> The original code path did:
> 04:00:0-02:04.0 max latency 64    -> ok
> 02:04.0-01:00.0 max latency 32 +1 -> ok
> 01:00.0-00:01.2 max latency 32 +2 -> ok
>
> And thus didn't see any L1 ASPM latency issues.
>
> The new code does:
> 04:00:0-02:04.0 max latency 64    -> ok
> 02:04.0-01:00.0 max latency 64 +1 -> latency exceeded
> 01:00.0-00:01.2 max latency 64 +2 -> latency exceeded
>
> It correctly identifies the issue.
>
> For reference, pcie information:
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=209725
>
> Kai-Heng Feng has a machine that will not boot with ASPM without this patch,
> information is documented here:
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=209671
>
> Signed-off-by: Ian Kumlien <ian.kumlien@gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
> index 253c30cc1967..c03ead0f1013 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
> @@ -434,7 +434,7 @@ static void pcie_get_aspm_reg(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>
>  static void pcie_aspm_check_latency(struct pci_dev *endpoint)
>  {
> -       u32 latency, l1_switch_latency = 0;
> +       u32 latency, l1_max_latency = 0, l1_switch_latency = 0;
>         struct aspm_latency *acceptable;
>         struct pcie_link_state *link;
>
> @@ -456,10 +456,14 @@ static void pcie_aspm_check_latency(struct pci_dev *endpoint)
>                 if ((link->aspm_capable & ASPM_STATE_L0S_DW) &&
>                     (link->latency_dw.l0s > acceptable->l0s))
>                         link->aspm_capable &= ~ASPM_STATE_L0S_DW;
> +
>                 /*
>                  * Check L1 latency.
> -                * Every switch on the path to root complex need 1
> -                * more microsecond for L1. Spec doesn't mention L0s.
> +                *
> +                * PCIe r5.0, sec 5.4.1.2.2 states:
> +                * A Switch is required to initiate an L1 exit transition on its
> +                * Upstream Port Link after no more than 1 μs from the beginning of an
> +                * L1 exit transition on any of its Downstream Port Links.
>                  *
>                  * The exit latencies for L1 substates are not advertised
>                  * by a device.  Since the spec also doesn't mention a way
> @@ -469,11 +473,13 @@ static void pcie_aspm_check_latency(struct pci_dev *endpoint)
>                  * L1 exit latencies advertised by a device include L1
>                  * substate latencies (and hence do not do any check).
>                  */
> -               latency = max_t(u32, link->latency_up.l1, link->latency_dw.l1);
> -               if ((link->aspm_capable & ASPM_STATE_L1) &&
> -                   (latency + l1_switch_latency > acceptable->l1))
> -                       link->aspm_capable &= ~ASPM_STATE_L1;
> -               l1_switch_latency += 1000;
> +               if (link->aspm_capable & ASPM_STATE_L1) {
> +                       latency = max_t(u32, link->latency_up.l1, link->latency_dw.l1);
> +                       l1_max_latency = max_t(u32, latency, l1_max_latency);
> +                       if (l1_max_latency + l1_switch_latency > acceptable->l1)
> +                               link->aspm_capable &= ~ASPM_STATE_L1;
> +                       l1_switch_latency += 1000;
> +               }
>
>                 link = link->parent;
>         }
> --
> 2.29.1
>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-11-15 21:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-10-07 13:28 [PATCH] Use maximum latency when determining L1 ASPM Ian Kumlien
2020-10-08  4:20 ` Kai-Heng Feng
2020-10-08 16:13 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-10-12 10:20   ` Ian Kumlien
2020-10-14  8:34     ` Kai-Heng Feng
2020-10-14 13:33       ` Ian Kumlien
2020-10-14 14:36         ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-10-14 15:39           ` Ian Kumlien
2020-10-16 14:53             ` Ian Kumlien
2020-10-16 21:28         ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-10-16 22:41           ` Ian Kumlien
2020-10-18 11:35             ` Ian Kumlien
2020-10-22 15:37               ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-10-22 15:41                 ` Ian Kumlien
2020-10-22 18:30                   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-10-24 20:55                     ` [PATCH 1/3] PCI/ASPM: Use the path max in L1 ASPM latency check Ian Kumlien
2020-10-24 20:55                       ` [PATCH 2/3] PCI/ASPM: Fix L0s max " Ian Kumlien
2020-11-15 21:49                         ` Ian Kumlien
2020-10-24 20:55                       ` [PATCH 3/3] [RFC] PCI/ASPM: Print L1/L0s latency messages per endpoint Ian Kumlien
2020-11-15 21:49                       ` Ian Kumlien [this message]
2020-12-07 11:04                         ` [PATCH 1/3] PCI/ASPM: Use the path max in L1 ASPM latency check Ian Kumlien
2020-12-12 23:47                       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-12-13 21:39                         ` Ian Kumlien
2020-12-14  5:44                           ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-12-14  9:14                             ` Ian Kumlien
2020-12-14 14:02                               ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-12-14 15:47                                 ` Ian Kumlien
2020-12-14 19:19                                   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-12-14 22:56                                     ` Ian Kumlien
2020-12-15  0:40                                       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-12-15 13:09                                         ` Ian Kumlien
2020-12-16  0:08                                           ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-12-16 11:20                                             ` Ian Kumlien
2020-12-16 23:21                                               ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-12-17 23:37                                                 ` Ian Kumlien
2021-01-12 20:42                       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-01-28 12:41                         ` Ian Kumlien
2021-02-24 22:19                           ` Ian Kumlien
2021-02-25 22:03                             ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-04-26 14:36                               ` Ian Kumlien
2021-04-28 21:15                                 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-05-15 11:52                                   ` Ian Kumlien

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='CAA85sZs_9hUFU233qBeZenyheBaLyhjGFCm+zFHgEseL=JuC3A@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=ian.kumlien@gmail.com \
    --cc=alexander.duyck@gmail.com \
    --cc=kai.heng.feng@canonical.com \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=puranjay12@gmail.com \
    --cc=refactormyself@gmail.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).