linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: "Kai-Heng Feng" <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	"Keith Busch" <kbusch@kernel.org>,
	"Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	"Linux PM" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Nirmal Patel" <nirmal.patel@linux.intel.com>,
	"Jonathan Derrick" <jonathan.derrick@linux.dev>,
	"Lorenzo Pieralisi" <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
	"Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>,
	"Linux PCI" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] PCI: vmd: Honor ACPI _OSC on PCIe features
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 18:09:15 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0i6+EMMGuKckhtTdt7TgC3LbofW7oS7B5=McSNjEh1yKA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220215150939.GA106706@bhelgaas>

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 4:09 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 08:23:05AM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 5:36 AM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 02:15:04PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 12:12 AM Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 11:15:41AM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
> > > > > > When Samsung PCIe Gen4 NVMe is connected to Intel ADL VMD, the
> > > > > > combination causes AER message flood and drags the system performance
> > > > > > down.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The issue doesn't happen when VMD mode is disabled in BIOS, since AER
> > > > > > isn't enabled by acpi_pci_root_create() . When VMD mode is enabled, AER
> > > > > > is enabled regardless of _OSC:
> > > > > > [    0.410076] acpi PNP0A08:00: _OSC: platform does not support [AER]
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > [    1.486704] pcieport 10000:e0:06.0: AER: enabled with IRQ 146
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since VMD is an aperture to regular PCIe root ports, honor ACPI _OSC to
> > > > > > disable PCIe features accordingly to resolve the issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > At least for some versions of this hardare, I recall ACPI is unaware of
> > > > > any devices in the VMD domain; the platform can not see past the VMD
> > > > > endpoint, so I throught the driver was supposed to always let the VMD
> > > > > domain use OS native support regardless of the parent's ACPI _OSC.
> > > >
> > > > This is orthogonal to whether or not ACPI is aware of the VMD domain
> > > > or the devices in it.
> > > >
> > > > If the platform firmware does not allow the OS to control specific
> > > > PCIe features at the physical host bridge level, that extends to the
> > > > VMD "bus", because it is just a way to expose a hidden part of the
> > > > PCIe hierarchy.
> > >
> > > I don't understand what's going on here.  Do we understand the AER
> > > message flood?  Are we just papering over it by disabling AER?
> >
> > To be more precise, AER is disabled by the platform vendor in BIOS to
> > paper over the issue.
> > The only viable solution for us is to follow their settings. We may
> > never know what really happens underneath.
> >
> > Disabling ASPM/AER/PME etc is a normal practice for ODMs unfortunately.
>
> OK.  So this patch actually has nothing in particular to do with AER.
> It's about making _OSC apply to *all* devices below a host bridge,
> even those below a VMD.

Right.

> This is slightly ambiguous because while "_OSC applies to the entire
> hierarchy originated by a PCI Host Bridge" (PCI Firmware spec r3.3,
> sec 4.5.1), vmd.c creates a logical view where devices below the VMD
> are in a separate hierarchy with a separate domain.

But from the HW perspective they still are in the same hierarchy below
the original host bridge.

> The interpretation that _OSC applies to devices below VMD should work,
> as long as it is possible for platform firmware to manage services
> (AER, pciehp, etc) for things below VMD without getting in the way of
> vmd.c.

vmd.c actually exposes things hidden by the firmware and the point of
the patch is to still let the firmware control them if it wants/needs
to IIUC.

> But I think one implication of this is that we cannot support
> hot-added VMDs.  For example, firmware that wants to manage AER will
> use _OSC to retain AER control.  But if the firmware doesn't know how
> VMDs work, it will not be able to handle AER for devices below the
> VMD.

Well, the firmware needs to know how stuff works to hide it in the
first place ...

> > > If an error occurs below a VMD, who notices and reports it?  If we
> > > disable native AER below VMD because of _OSC, as this patch does, I
> > > guess we're assuming the platform will handle AER events below VMD.
> > > Is that really true?  Does the platform know how to find AER log
> > > registers of devices below VMD?
> > >
> > > > The platform firmware does that through ACPI _OSC under the host
> > > > bridge device (not under the VMD device) which it is very well aware
> > > > of.

  reply	other threads:[~2022-02-15 17:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-12-03  3:15 [PATCH v3] PCI: vmd: Honor ACPI _OSC on PCIe features Kai-Heng Feng
2021-12-03 14:00 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-12-06 23:12 ` Keith Busch
2021-12-07 13:15   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-02-09 21:36     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2022-02-10 17:52       ` Jonathan Derrick
2022-02-14  0:27         ` Kai-Heng Feng
2022-02-14  0:23       ` Kai-Heng Feng
2022-02-15 15:09         ` Bjorn Helgaas
2022-02-15 17:09           ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2022-02-16  1:53             ` Bjorn Helgaas
2022-02-16  8:14               ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-16 12:37               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-01-04 15:26 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi

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='CAJZ5v0i6+EMMGuKckhtTdt7TgC3LbofW7oS7B5=McSNjEh1yKA@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=jonathan.derrick@linux.dev \
    --cc=kai.heng.feng@canonical.com \
    --cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
    --cc=kw@linux.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=nirmal.patel@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=robh@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).