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 :)
next prev parent 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).