From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.atheros.com ([12.36.123.2]:17222 "EHLO mail.atheros.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752615Ab0FVTN3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:13:29 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 12:13:25 -0700 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: Matthew Garrett CC: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , David Quan , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , linux-kernel , "ath5k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net" , Jonathan May , Jussi Kivilinna , Tim Gardner Subject: Re: [ath5k-devel] [PATCH v2] ath5k: disable ASPM Message-ID: <20100622191325.GF12659@tux> References: <20100622163138.GD20668@srcf.ucam.org> <20100622165213.GA21842@srcf.ucam.org> <20100622172545.GA22680@srcf.ucam.org> <20100622175058.GA23499@srcf.ucam.org> <20100622184426.GA24546@srcf.ucam.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: <20100622184426.GA24546@srcf.ucam.org> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:44:26AM -0700, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:28:20AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > People who use "force" deserve whatever they get, > > > > Heh, this whole patch and thread was started because Jussi tested > > ath5k with pcie_aspm=force (on a pre PCIE 1.1 device (?)) . I have > > been trying to explain all along why this is a terrible idea to the > > point we should probably just remove that code from the kernel. Hence > > my side rants and explanations to justify my reasonings. > > Well, there's two things here. If you use force then you might get > inappropriate ASPM. But if your BIOS enables ASPM on an old device, then > booting *without* CONFIG_PCIE_ASPM will leave it turned on, and booting > *with* CONFIG_PCIE_ASPM will turn it off. The Kconfig description is > confusing - reality is that CONFIG_PCIE_ASPM enables logic that allows > the kernel to modify the BIOS default, and disabling it makes the > assumption that your BIOS did something sensible. Agreed, given that you also mentioned you would put it under embeeded how about something like this: diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/Kconfig b/drivers/pci/pcie/Kconfig index b8b494b..9c76b70 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/Kconfig @@ -31,14 +31,29 @@ source "drivers/pci/pcie/aer/Kconfig" # PCI Express ASPM # config PCIEASPM - bool "PCI Express ASPM support(Experimental)" - depends on PCI && EXPERIMENTAL && PCIEPORTBUS - default n + bool "PCI Express ASPM sanity check support" if EMBEDDED + depends on PCI && PCIEPORTBUS + default y help - This enables PCI Express ASPM (Active State Power Management) and - Clock Power Management. ASPM supports state L0/L0s/L1. + This enables some sanity checks for PCI Express ASPM. + ASPM supports the states L0/L0s/L1. The sanity checks are to + disable ASPM if: + + a) the device is pre-1.1 + b) the firmware has the FADT flag set to tell you not to + c) the firmware doesn't grant control via _OSC + + Without this option your BIOS's defaults will be respected + and while although this should always be correct it typically + is not. If your ASPM settings are incorrect you may experience + odd hangs which are hard to debug. These sanity checks should + help avoid these odd hangs by only enabling ASPM if we are + sure we can enable it. + + For more information you can refer to this documentation: + + http://wireless.kernel.org/en/users/Documentation/ASPM - When in doubt, say N. config PCIEASPM_DEBUG bool "Debug PCI Express ASPM" depends on PCIEASPM > > Where is "powersave"? > > > > I do see a "powersave" but its an ASPM policy string and it implies > > you want to enable L1 and L0s when the device's LinkCap supports it, > > see pcie_config_aspm_link() and its users. So in other words powersave > > seems to imply you are using pcie_aspm=force, no? > > No. pcie_aspm=force will enable ASPM even if (a) the device is pre-1.1, > (b) the firmware has the FADT flag set to tell you not to and (c) the > firmware doesn't grant control via _OSC. The powersave policy will > enable ASPM even if the BIOS didn't, but only if something else doesn't > tell us not to. So if any of the above (a) (b) or (c) are true powersave will keep it disabled? Is pcie_aspm=forcepowersave this a new option with your patches? > > > Fedora's defaulted to that for a while now - we've hit > > > issues with aacraid, but that's pretty much it in terms of cases where > > > the heuristics don't work. Maxim's problems wouldn't be triggered > > > because CONFIG_PCIE_ASPM disables it on pre-1.1 devices regardless of > > > the BIOS setup. > > > > I don't expect all distributions to have CONFIG_PCIE_ASPM enabled, in > > fact I was unaware of this sanity check being included as part of > > CONFIG_PCIE_ASPM, I recommend we consider just enabling the sanity > > check all the time. The fact that CONFIG_PCIE_ASPM is even an option > > seems confusing to me given that apart from this sanity check the only > > other thing that I see useful in it is the forcing of ASPM settings > > and as I noted I think pcie_aspm=force is pretty dangerous. > > You're right, it shouldn't be an option. It's vital for making sure that > ASPM is disabled when it should be. I'd be happy with pcie_aspm=force > tainting the kernel. :) ! > > > With the patch I've just sent, they should also all be used for Linux as > > > well. > > > > Oh nice! It'll be part of 2.6.36? > > As long as Jesse picks it up. Nice. > > > If the same problems would appear under Windows then it's not a problem > > > that I'm hugely concerned about as yet > > > > Yes, these issues would also be part of Windows. But should also note > > this also means for those people working on their own BIOSes it means > > you also have to take these things into more serious consideration. > > There's a standardised mechanism for BIOS authors to tell us not to > touch their ASPM configuration, and people that ignore that really do > deserve to have things break. Oh, I was more concerned about open bios hackers. If a device requires PCI host controller tweaks should *we* be doing those tweaks and sanity checks oursevles upstream or should we rely on the open-bios guys to do it accordingly in their code? > > Me neither, ASPM should just work with default settings, which is why > > I also do not like that the sanity check on the PCIE 1.1 spec is done > > through CONFIG_PCIE_ASPM, it makes no sense given that ASPM *will* > > work even if you do not have CONFIG_PCIE_ASPM but the device has > > functional ASPM. > > I agree. I'll send a patch that moves it under CONFIG_EMBEDDED and > defaults to on. :D > > I do think we should be depending on userspace to do development > > testing and forcing ASPM on, because the only other alternative is > > pcie_aspm=force and as noted this is just not a good idea unless you > > *seriously* know what you are doing. > > If you set the powersave policy and ASPM doesn't get enabled, then > that's because we've got a really strong belief that ASPM shouldn't be > enabled. Is your concern just that pcie_aspm=force is too easy for users > to get at? Yes! I think people are starting to use it like to magically save more power without taking into consideration the implications. This is why I was suggesting maybe we nuke that option all together. Does it *really* give us any benefit? The only benefit I see is if we *are* 100% sure our system should work with all our root complexes and endpoints having ASPM enabled. That I do not see happening until a few years from now. Maybe we should have another type of module parameter type, a I_know_what_Im_doing_module_parameter and taint whenever any of those are on, not just pcie_aspm=force ? :) Luis