linux-pci.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
To: Andreas Noever <andreas.noever@gmail.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>,
	Peter Wu <peter@lekensteyn.nl>,
	"linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Valdis Kletnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>,
	Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Wait for 50ms after bridge is powered up
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 11:58:05 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160531085805.GI1743@lahna.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160531083349.GG1743@lahna.fi.intel.com>

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:33:49AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 05:19:53PM +0200, Andreas Noever wrote:
> > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Mika Westerberg
> > <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 12:33:26PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > >> I also learned that both of these can be shortened with following
> > >> mechanisms:
> > >>
> > >>  - PCIe readines notifications (6.23 in PCIe spec 3.1a)
> > >>  - ACPI _DSM method returning readines durations from  (4.6.9 in PCI
> > >>    firmware spec 3.2).
> > >
> > > BTW, looks like the latter is already implemented in
> > > pci_acpi_optimize_delay().
> > 
> > 
> > Hmm, Lukas's trace suggest a few independent problems (or optimisations):
> > 1. Those devices are siblings, we should wake all of them in parallel
> > and then wait once instead of one by one.
> > 2. Why are we waiting after _suspend at all? It seems we should only
> > wait before the next access. Sleeping after _suspend looks like a stop
> > gap measure to guarantee that no accesses take place?
> 
> I guess it is because PCI PM spec says that the delay needs to be in
> both directions. See table 5-6 in PCI PM spec v1.2.
> 
> The code in question is in pci_raw_set_power_state():
> 
>         /* Mandatory power management transition delays */
>         /* see PCI PM 1.1 5.6.1 table 18 */
>         if (state == PCI_D3hot || dev->current_state == PCI_D3hot)
>                 pci_dev_d3_sleep(dev);
>         else if (state == PCI_D2 || dev->current_state == PCI_D2)
>                 udelay(PCI_PM_D2_DELAY);
> 
> > 3. The idle timeout is too low, there should be no suspend between
> > discovery and probing.
> 
> I agree. We took the 10ms from the original patch but I don't see why we
> could not increase it to 100ms or even 500ms.
> 
> > 4. Even if the spec says 50ms, we might still want to have shorter
> > sleep times for known good devices. Thunderbolt can produce PCI
> > hierarchies which are 7 levels deep with 4 hp bridges on each level.
> > Waking all of that would take 50ms * 7 * 4 = 1400ms (not counting
> > upstream bridges which have the normal d3 delay).
> 
> PCIe spec want to have 100ms delay from when transitioning from D3cold
> to D0 and we already do that in __pci_start_power_transition().
> 
> In other words we should have all necessary delays for PCIe in place
> already. This patch should not be needed.

To summarize the next steps. I will send new version of the
PCI PM patches with following changes.

  - Drop this 50ms patch, we should have the PCIe 100ms delay already
    covered.

  - Increase runtime PM autosuspend time from 10ms to 500ms (or whatever
    is the prefered default).

  - Add new version of ACPI hotplug patch where pm_runtime_get/put() is
    moved into acpiphp_check_bridge().

Let me know if I'm forgetting something.

Bjorn, is this ok for you? It would be nice to get the updated series to
linux-next for wider testing :)

  reply	other threads:[~2016-05-31  8:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-05-18 17:14 Rescanning is broken with runtime PM for PCIe ports Peter Wu
2016-05-19  7:42 ` Mika Westerberg
2016-05-19 11:36   ` Mika Westerberg
2016-05-20  8:45     ` Peter Wu
2016-05-23  8:20       ` [PATCH] PCI: Power on bridges before scanning new devices Mika Westerberg
2016-05-23 20:00         ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-05-23 21:50           ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-05-24 12:23             ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-05-24 12:52               ` Lukas Wunner
2016-05-24 12:53               ` Mika Westerberg
2016-05-24 14:27                 ` Peter Wu
2016-05-24 15:06                   ` Lukas Wunner
2016-05-24 16:38                   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-05-24 23:46                     ` Peter Wu
2016-05-24 16:28                 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-05-25 15:04                   ` [PATCH] PCI: Wait for 50ms after bridge is powered up Mika Westerberg
2016-05-25 20:44                     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-05-26 10:10                     ` Lukas Wunner
2016-05-26 10:25                       ` Mika Westerberg
2016-05-26 10:45                         ` Lukas Wunner
2016-05-26 11:03                           ` Mika Westerberg
2016-05-28 12:29                             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-05-30  9:33                               ` Mika Westerberg
2016-05-30 14:44                                 ` Mika Westerberg
2016-05-30 15:19                                   ` Andreas Noever
2016-05-31  8:33                                     ` Mika Westerberg
2016-05-31  8:58                                       ` Mika Westerberg [this message]
2016-05-31 10:40                                         ` Lukas Wunner
2016-05-31 10:47                                           ` Mika Westerberg
2016-05-31 11:07                                             ` Lukas Wunner
2016-06-01  9:11                                               ` Mika Westerberg
2016-06-01 11:42                                                 ` Lukas Wunner
2016-05-24 21:13                 ` [PATCH] PCI: Power on bridges before scanning new devices Mika Westerberg
2016-05-25  0:03                   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-05-25 13:19                   ` Mika Westerberg
2016-05-25 20:45                     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-05-26  8:16                       ` Mika Westerberg
2016-05-28 12:21                         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-05-30  9:35                           ` Mika Westerberg
2016-05-25 12:16                 ` Lukas Wunner
2016-05-25 13:25                   ` Mika Westerberg

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=20160531085805.GI1743@lahna.fi.intel.com \
    --to=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=airlied@gmail.com \
    --cc=andreas.noever@gmail.com \
    --cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lukas@wunner.de \
    --cc=peter@lekensteyn.nl \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu \
    /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).