From: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
To: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
Cc: netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Anthony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>,
Karol Kolacinski <karol.kolacinski@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-net] ice: ensure periodic output start time is in the future
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 14:59:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250215145941.GQ1615191@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250212-jk-gnrd-ptp-pin-patches-v1-1-7cbae692ac97@intel.com>
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 03:54:39PM -0800, Jacob Keller wrote:
> From: Karol Kolacinski <karol.kolacinski@intel.com>
>
> On E800 series hardware, if the start time for a periodic output signal is
> programmed into GLTSYN_TGT_H and GLTSYN_TGT_L registers, the hardware logic
> locks up and the periodic output signal never starts. Any future attempt to
> reprogram the clock function is futile as the hardware will not reset until
> a power on.
>
> The ice_ptp_cfg_perout function has logic to prevent this, as it checks if
> the requested start time is in the past. If so, a new start time is
> calculated by rounding up.
>
> Since commit d755a7e129a5 ("ice: Cache perout/extts requests and check
> flags"), the rounding is done to the nearest multiple of the clock period,
> rather than to a full second. This is more accurate, since it ensures the
> signal matches the user request precisely.
>
> Unfortunately, there is a race condition with this rounding logic. If the
> current time is close to the multiple of the period, we could calculate a
> target time that is extremely soon. It takes time for the software to
> program the registers, during which time this requested start time could
> become a start time in the past. If that happens, the periodic output
> signal will lock up.
>
> For large enough periods, or for the logic prior to the mentioned commit,
> this is unlikely. However, with the new logic rounding to the period and
> with a small enough period, this becomes inevitable.
>
> For example, attempting to enable a 10MHz signal requires a period of 100
> nanoseconds. This means in the *best* case, we have 99 nanoseconds to
> program the clock output. This is essentially impossible, and thus such a
> small period practically guarantees that the clock output function will
> lock up.
>
> To fix this, add some slop to the clock time used to check if the start
> time is in the past. Because it is not critical that output signals start
> immediately, but it *is* critical that we do not brick the function, 0.5
> seconds is selected. This does mean that any requested output will be
> delayed by at least 0.5 seconds.
>
> This slop is applied before rounding, so that we always round up to the
> nearest multiple of the period that is at least 0.5 seconds in the future,
> ensuring a minimum of 0.5 seconds to program the clock output registers.
>
> Finally, to ensure that the hardware registers programming the clock output
> complete in a timely manner, add a write flush to the end of
> ice_ptp_write_perout. This ensures we don't risk any issue with PCIe
> transaction batching.
>
> Strictly speaking, this fixes a race condition all the way back at the
> initial implementation of periodic output programming, as it is
> theoretically possible to trigger this bug even on the old logic when
> always rounding to a full second. However, the window is narrow, and the
> code has been refactored heavily since then, making a direct backport not
> apply cleanly.
>
> Fixes: d755a7e129a5 ("ice: Cache perout/extts requests and check flags")
> Signed-off-by: Karol Kolacinski <karol.kolacinski@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
Thanks for the excellent patch description.
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-15 14:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-12 23:54 [PATCH iwl-net] ice: ensure periodic output start time is in the future Jacob Keller
2025-02-15 14:59 ` Simon Horman [this message]
2025-02-19 22:30 ` Jacob Keller
2025-02-20 10:36 ` Simon Horman
2025-02-24 11:36 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Przemek Kitszel
2025-02-24 11:36 ` Przemek Kitszel
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-02-19 22:13 Jacob Keller
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=20250215145941.GQ1615191@kernel.org \
--to=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com \
--cc=jacob.e.keller@intel.com \
--cc=karol.kolacinski@intel.com \
--cc=netdev@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.