From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Mikko Vinni <mmvinni@yahoo.com>,
"linux-input@vger.kernel.org" <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
Allen Kay <allen.m.kay@intel.com>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>,
"linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Fix regression in pci_restore_state()
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:53:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201204232153.57351.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAErSpo4St6zBBz7131Ne3BEHNO8Xcq8sCy3T5HV1F0B1B1u1cg@mail.gmail.com>
On Monday, April 23, 2012, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 15, 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > mdelay(10) doesn't really look good either to me in this case, though.
> >>
> >> Oh, I agree. What kind of ass-backwards device actually needs that
> >> kind of crazy delays? It is almost certainly buggy.
> >>
> >> With retries, 10ms delays are totally unacceptable. There's something wrong.
> >>
> >> A single ms *may* be ok.
> >>
> >> Anyway, can you also split the actual "write _one_ register with
> >> retry" into a function of its own? The code looks like crap with those
> >> multiple levels of looping, with conditionals inside them etc. With a
> >> simple helper function, you could change the break into return, and it
> >> would look much better, I bet.
> >
> > Sure. It appears cleaner this way.
> >
> > ---
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> > Subject: PCI: Fix regression in pci_restore_state(), v3
> >
> > Commit 26f41062f28de65e11d3cf353e52d0be73442be1
> >
> > PCI: check for pci bar restore completion and retry
> >
> > attempted to address problems with PCI BAR restoration on systems
> > where FLR had not been completed before pci_restore_state() was
> > called, but it did that in an utterly wrong way.
> >
> > First off, instead of retrying the writes for the BAR registers
> > only, it did that for all of the PCI config space of the device,
> > including the status register (whose value after the write quite
> > obviously need not be the same as the written one). Second, it
> > added arbitrary delay to pci_restore_state() even for systems
> > where the PCI config space restoration was successful at first
> > attempt. Finally, the mdelay(10) it added to every iteration of the
> > writing loop was way too much of a delay for any reasonable device.
> >
> > All of this actually caused resume failures for some devices on
> > the Mikko's system.
> >
> > To fix the regression, make pci_restore_state() only retry the
> > writes for BAR registers and only wait if the first read from
> > the register doesn't return the written value. Additionaly, make
> > it wait for 1 ms, instead of 10 ms, after every failing attempt
> > to write into config space.
> >
> > Reported-by: Mikko Vinni <mmvinni@yahoo.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> > ---
> > drivers/pci/pci.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> > 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux.orig/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > +++ linux/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > @@ -967,16 +967,47 @@ pci_save_state(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static void pci_restore_config_dword(struct pci_dev *pdev, int offset,
> > + u32 saved_val, int retry)
> > +{
> > + u32 val;
> > +
> > + pci_read_config_dword(pdev, offset, &val);
> > + if (val == saved_val)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + for (;;) {
> > + dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "restoring config space at offset "
> > + "%#x (was %#x, writing %#x)\n", offset, val, saved_val);
> > + pci_write_config_dword(pdev, offset, saved_val);
> > + if (retry-- <= 0)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + pci_read_config_dword(pdev, offset, &val);
> > + if (val == saved_val)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + mdelay(1);
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void pci_restore_config_space(struct pci_dev *pdev, int start, int end,
> > + int retry)
> > +{
> > + int index;
> > +
> > + for (index = end; index >= start; index--)
> > + pci_restore_config_dword(pdev, 4 * index,
> > + pdev->saved_config_space[index],
> > + retry);
> > +}
> > +
> > /**
> > * pci_restore_state - Restore the saved state of a PCI device
> > * @dev: - PCI device that we're dealing with
> > */
> > void pci_restore_state(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > {
> > - int i;
> > - u32 val;
> > - int tries;
> > -
> > if (!dev->state_saved)
> > return;
> >
> > @@ -984,24 +1015,14 @@ void pci_restore_state(struct pci_dev *d
> > pci_restore_pcie_state(dev);
> > pci_restore_ats_state(dev);
> >
> > + pci_restore_config_space(dev, 10, 15, 0);
> > /*
> > * The Base Address register should be programmed before the command
> > * register(s)
> > */
> > - for (i = 15; i >= 0; i--) {
> > - pci_read_config_dword(dev, i * 4, &val);
> > - tries = 10;
> > - while (tries && val != dev->saved_config_space[i]) {
> > - dev_dbg(&dev->dev, "restoring config "
> > - "space at offset %#x (was %#x, writing %#x)\n",
> > - i, val, (int)dev->saved_config_space[i]);
> > - pci_write_config_dword(dev,i * 4,
> > - dev->saved_config_space[i]);
> > - pci_read_config_dword(dev, i * 4, &val);
> > - mdelay(10);
> > - tries--;
> > - }
> > - }
> > + pci_restore_config_space(dev, 4, 9, 10);
> > + pci_restore_config_space(dev, 0, 3, 0);
> > +
> > pci_restore_pcix_state(dev);
> > pci_restore_msi_state(dev);
> > pci_restore_iov_state(dev);
>
> I'd feel better about this if there were a way to delay in the FLR
> path instead. If we delay in the restore path, we're only fixing one
> of the many ways config space can be written. Other paths that write
> config space will just silently fail.
>
> The PCIe spec (r3.0, sec 6.6.2) mentions waiting for the "pre-FLR
> value for Completion Timeout," but I don't see anything that looks
> like that in pcie_flr() or pci_af_flr(). Are there any other direct
> ways we can detect when the FLR is complete?
I'm not aware of any.
Thanks,
Rafael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-23 19:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1334310754.17013.YahooMailNeo@web161804.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
2012-04-13 19:18 ` [linux-pm] "i8042: Can't reactivate AUX port" after s2ram on 3.4-rc2 Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-04-13 19:49 ` Mikko Vinni
2012-04-13 20:19 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-04-13 20:47 ` Mikko Vinni
2012-04-14 22:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-04-15 10:39 ` Mikko Vinni
2012-04-15 18:30 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-04-15 19:52 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-04-15 20:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-04-16 7:23 ` Mikko Vinni
2012-04-16 16:17 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-04-16 18:57 ` Mikko Vinni
2012-04-16 19:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-04-16 20:35 ` [PATCH] PCI: Retry BARs restoration for Type 0 headers only Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-04-16 20:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-16 21:07 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-04-16 5:15 ` [linux-pm] "i8042: Can't reactivate AUX port" after s2ram on 3.4-rc2 Mikko Vinni
2012-04-16 16:14 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-04-15 18:32 ` [PATCH] PCI: Fix regression in pci_restore_state() Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-04-15 18:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-15 18:47 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-04-15 18:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-15 19:40 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-04-23 17:03 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-04-23 19:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2012-04-23 20:07 ` Don Dutile
2012-04-23 22:33 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-04-24 16:03 ` Don Dutile
2012-04-24 17:01 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-04-24 17:35 ` Don Dutile
2012-04-27 22:20 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-04-15 8:12 ` [linux-pm] "i8042: Can't reactivate AUX port" after s2ram on 3.4-rc2 James Courtier-Dutton
2012-04-15 10:47 ` Mikko Vinni
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=201204232153.57351.rjw@sisk.pl \
--to=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=allen.m.kay@intel.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org \
--cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mmvinni@yahoo.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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).