From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
To: Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@nebula.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
Emmanuel Grumbach <egrumbach@gmail.com>,
Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com>,
"linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
John Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
Roman Yepishev <roman.yepishev@gmail.com>,
"Guy, Wey-Yi" <wey-yi.w.guy@intel.com>,
Mike Miller <mike.miller@hp.com>,
"iss_storagedev@hp.com" <iss_storagedev@hp.com>,
Guo-Fu Tseng <cooldavid@cooldavid.org>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Francois Romieu <romieu@fr.zoreil.com>,
"nic_swsd@realtek.com" <nic_swsd@realtek.com>,
"aacraid@adaptec.com" <aacraid@adaptec.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: is L1 really disabled in iwlwifi
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 16:55:35 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130516225535.GA27962@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1368303730.2425.47.camel@x230>
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 08:22:11PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-05-11 at 22:26 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, May 10, 2013 04:52:57 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > I propose the following patch. Any comments?
> >
> > In my opinion this is dangerous, because it opens us to bugs that right now
> > are prevented from happening due to the way the code works.
>
> Right, I'm also not entirely comfortable with this. The current
> behaviour may be confusing, but we could reduce that by renaming the
> functions. I'm still not clear on whether anyone's actually seeing
> problems caused by the existing behaviour.
I couldn't imagine that silently ignoring the request to disable ASPM
would be the right thing, but I spent a long time experimenting with
Windows on qemu, and I think you're right. Windows 7 also seems to
ignore the "PciASPMOptOut" directive when we don't have permission
to manage ASPM. All the gory details are at
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57331
The current behavior is definitely confusing. I hate to rename or change
pci_disable_link_state() because it's exported and we'd have to maintain
the old interface for a while anyway. And I don't really want to return
failure to drivers, because I think that would encourage people to fiddle
with the Link Control register directly in the driver, which doesn't seem
like a good idea.
And you're also right that (as far as I know) there's not an actual
problem with the current behavior other than the confusion it causes.
So, how about something like the following patch, which just prints a
warning when we can't do what the driver requested? I suppose this may
also be a nuisance, because users will be worried, but they can't actually
*do* anything about it. Maybe it should be dev_info() instead.
commit f1956960fa0759c53b28e3a2810bd7e1b6e8925f
Author: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Date: Wed May 15 17:02:37 2013 -0600
PCI/ASPM: Warn when driver asks to disable ASPM, but we can't do it
Some devices have hardware problems related to using ASPM. Drivers for
these devices use pci_disable_link_state() to prevent their device from
entering L0s or L1. But on platforms where the OS doesn't have permission
to manage ASPM, pci_disable_link_state() doesn't actually disable ASPM.
Windows has a similar mechanism ("PciASPMOptOut"), and when the OS doesn't
have control of ASPM, it doesn't actually disable ASPM either.
This patch just adds a warning in dmesg about the fact that
pci_disable_link_state() is doing nothing.
Reported-by: Emmanuel Grumbach <egrumbach@gmail.com>
Reference: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CANUX_P3F5YhbZX3WGU-j1AGpbXb_T9Bis2ErhvKkFMtDvzatVQ@mail.gmail.com
Reference: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57331
Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
index d320df6..faa83b6 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
@@ -724,9 +724,6 @@ static void __pci_disable_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev, int state, bool sem,
struct pci_dev *parent = pdev->bus->self;
struct pcie_link_state *link;
- if (aspm_disabled && !force)
- return;
-
if (!pci_is_pcie(pdev))
return;
@@ -736,6 +733,19 @@ static void __pci_disable_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev, int state, bool sem,
if (!parent || !parent->link_state)
return;
+ /*
+ * A driver requested that ASPM be disabled on this device, but
+ * if we don't have permission to manage ASPM (e.g., on ACPI
+ * systems we have to observe the FADT ACPI_FADT_NO_ASPM bit and
+ * the _OSC method), we can't honor that request. Windows has
+ * a similar mechanism using "PciASPMOptOut", which is also
+ * ignored in this situation.
+ */
+ if (aspm_disabled && !force) {
+ dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "can't disable ASPM; OS doesn't have ASPM control\n");
+ return;
+ }
+
if (sem)
down_read(&pci_bus_sem);
mutex_lock(&aspm_lock);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-16 22:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-04 8:41 is L1 really disabled in iwlwifi Emmanuel Grumbach
2013-03-04 13:44 ` John W. Linville
2013-03-04 13:49 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2013-03-04 14:57 ` Emmanuel Grumbach
2013-03-04 15:11 ` John W. Linville
2013-03-04 15:48 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2013-03-04 17:58 ` Emmanuel Grumbach
2013-03-17 15:59 ` Roman Yepishev
2013-03-29 18:24 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2013-03-30 18:38 ` Emmanuel Grumbach
2013-03-30 21:26 ` Bjorn Helgaas
[not found] ` <CANUX_P2Hy02SnyYS24dyUGLv3wB3L5xkXt8Y1s+8_RG9d5ReAw@mail.gmail.com>
2013-04-02 11:12 ` Emmanuel Grumbach
2013-04-07 12:23 ` Emmanuel Grumbach
2013-04-08 16:28 ` Bjorn Helgaas
[not found] ` <CANUX_P0hpx8NNvX6cJXfOZMNYN8hrEF-gzf9hBN2Uz=k0WiwgA@mail.gmail.com>
2013-04-30 10:57 ` Emmanuel Grumbach
2013-04-30 22:45 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2013-04-30 22:55 ` Matthew Garrett
2013-05-01 8:31 ` Emmanuel Grumbach
2013-05-01 17:13 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2013-05-10 22:52 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2013-05-11 20:26 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-05-11 20:22 ` Matthew Garrett
2013-05-16 22:55 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2013-05-17 5:49 ` Emmanuel Grumbach
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=20130516225535.GA27962@google.com \
--to=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=aacraid@adaptec.com \
--cc=cooldavid@cooldavid.org \
--cc=egrumbach@gmail.com \
--cc=iss_storagedev@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=matthew.garrett@nebula.com \
--cc=mike.miller@hp.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nic_swsd@realtek.com \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=roman.yepishev@gmail.com \
--cc=romieu@fr.zoreil.com \
--cc=sgruszka@redhat.com \
--cc=wey-yi.w.guy@intel.com \
/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).