From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
To: Mike Marciniszyn <infinipath@intel.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Cc: "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
"Busch, Keith" <keith.busch@intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
infinipath <infinipath@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] QIB: Removing usage of pcie_set_mps()
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 19:49:06 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150818014906.GA10427@obsidianresearch.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAErSpo7GEbAtkXr-VgifNtdcaDUCOkeFMcdzDXvdC-QH2qT7=w@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 07:06:10PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Jiang, Dave <dave.jiang@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 17:30 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> [+cc Mike, linux-rdma]
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 04:18:54PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> >> > From: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>
> >> >
> >> > This is in perperation of un-exporting the pcie_set_mps() function
> >> > symbol. A driver should not be changing the MPS as that is the
> >> > responsibility of the PCI subsystem.
> >>
> >> Please explain the implications of removing this code. Does this
> >> affect
> >> performance of the device? If so, how do we get that performance
> >> back?
> >
> > Honestly I don't know. But at the same time I think the driver
> > shouldn't be touching the MPS at all. Shouldn't that be left to the
> > PCIe subsystem and rely on the PCIe subsystem to set this to a sane
> > value?
>
> Yes, I think in principle the PCI core should own this, but I also
> don't want to introduce a performance regression, so I think we need
> to understand whether there's a problem, and if there is, fix it.
Making sure Mike is CC'd directly..
Mike: I see this has been cut and pasted to HFI1 too, I would be
disappointed if HFI needs it as well. :(
FWIW, I totally agree with the above. MPS/MRS and related have to do
with root port capability, switches in the path and any platform
bugs..
I'm not sure why a driver would ever want to mess with this, and since
this code doesn't walk the bus toward the root port, it is technically
wrong, right? I also find it strange that qib_pcie_caps defaults to
zero which means the 'tuning' reduces the payload size to the minimums
(??)
> >> > /*
> >> > * Now the Read Request size.
> >> > * No field for max supported, but PCIe spec limits it to
> >> > 4096,
.. it has been a bit since I looked at this, but IIRC, MRRS is also
something that should not be touched by a driver?
Jason
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "Jiang,
Dave" <dave.jiang-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
"Busch,
Keith" <keith.busch-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-pci-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<linux-pci-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
infinipath <infinipath-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] QIB: Removing usage of pcie_set_mps()
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 19:49:06 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150818014906.GA10427@obsidianresearch.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAErSpo7GEbAtkXr-VgifNtdcaDUCOkeFMcdzDXvdC-QH2qT7=w@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 07:06:10PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Jiang, Dave <dave.jiang-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 17:30 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> [+cc Mike, linux-rdma]
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 04:18:54PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> >> > From: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> >> >
> >> > This is in perperation of un-exporting the pcie_set_mps() function
> >> > symbol. A driver should not be changing the MPS as that is the
> >> > responsibility of the PCI subsystem.
> >>
> >> Please explain the implications of removing this code. Does this
> >> affect
> >> performance of the device? If so, how do we get that performance
> >> back?
> >
> > Honestly I don't know. But at the same time I think the driver
> > shouldn't be touching the MPS at all. Shouldn't that be left to the
> > PCIe subsystem and rely on the PCIe subsystem to set this to a sane
> > value?
>
> Yes, I think in principle the PCI core should own this, but I also
> don't want to introduce a performance regression, so I think we need
> to understand whether there's a problem, and if there is, fix it.
Making sure Mike is CC'd directly..
Mike: I see this has been cut and pasted to HFI1 too, I would be
disappointed if HFI needs it as well. :(
FWIW, I totally agree with the above. MPS/MRS and related have to do
with root port capability, switches in the path and any platform
bugs..
I'm not sure why a driver would ever want to mess with this, and since
this code doesn't walk the bus toward the root port, it is technically
wrong, right? I also find it strange that qib_pcie_caps defaults to
zero which means the 'tuning' reduces the payload size to the minimums
(??)
> >> > /*
> >> > * Now the Read Request size.
> >> > * No field for max supported, but PCIe spec limits it to
> >> > 4096,
.. it has been a bit since I looked at this, but IIRC, MRRS is also
something that should not be touched by a driver?
Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-18 1:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-29 22:18 [PATCH 0/3] PCI-e Max Payload Size configuration Keith Busch
2015-07-29 22:18 ` [PATCH] pci: Default MPS tuning, match upstream port Keith Busch
2015-08-17 22:28 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-08-17 23:03 ` Keith Busch
2015-07-29 22:18 ` [PATCH 2/3] QIB: Removing usage of pcie_set_mps() Keith Busch
2015-08-17 22:30 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-08-17 22:50 ` Jiang, Dave
2015-08-17 22:50 ` Jiang, Dave
2015-08-17 22:50 ` Jiang, Dave
2015-08-18 0:06 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-08-18 1:49 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2015-08-18 1:49 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2015-07-29 22:18 ` [PATCH 3/3] PCIE: Remove symbol export for pcie_set_mps() Keith Busch
2015-08-17 22:31 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-08-17 23:32 ` Jiang, Dave
2015-08-17 23:32 ` Jiang, Dave
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=20150818014906.GA10427@obsidianresearch.com \
--to=jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
--cc=infinipath@intel.com \
--cc=keith.busch@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.