From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] PCI: Add Extended Tag + MRRS quirk for Xeon 6
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 10:39:18 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250307163918.GA410256@bhelgaas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ef29ceb3-9aa6-f4ca-014e-3f005a9b4beb@linux.intel.com>
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 03:06:31PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2025, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 03:51:08PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > > Disallow Extended Tags and Max Read Request Size (MRRS) larger than
> > > 128B for devices under Xeon 6 Root Ports if the Root Port is bifurcated
> > > to x2. Also, 10-Bit Tag Requester should be disallowed for device
> > > underneath these Root Ports but there is currently no 10-Bit Tag
> > > support in the kernel.
> > >
> > > The normal path that writes MRRS is through
> > > pcie_bus_configure_settings() -> pcie_bus_configure_set() ->
> > > pcie_write_mrrs() and contains a few early returns that are based on
> > > the value of pcie_bus_config. Overriding such checks with the host
> > > bridge flag check on each level seems messy. Thus, simply ensure MRRS
> > > is always written in pci_configure_device() if a device requiring the
> > > quirk is detected.
> >
> > This is kind of weird. It's apparently not an erratum in the sense
> > that something doesn't *work*, just something for "optimized PCIe
> > performance"?
> >
> > What are we supposed to do with this? Add similar quirks for every
> > random PCI controller? Scratching my head about what this means for
> > the future.
> >
> > What bad things happen if we *don't* do this? Is this something we
> > could/should rely on BIOS to configure for us?
>
> Even if BIOS configures this (I'm under impression they already do, I
> had problem in finding a configuration in our lab on which this patch
> had some effect). But my kernel was built with CONFIG_PCIE_BUS_DEFAULT, if
> I set that to CONFIG_PCIE_BUS_PERFORMANCE, what BIOS did will be
> overwritten.
I despise those CONFIG_PCIE_BUS_* options, but have never managed to
get rid of them. Unfortunate that something named "*_PERFORMANCE"
will apparently result in *worse* performance in this respect.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-07 16:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-04 13:51 [RFC PATCH 1/1] PCI: Add Extended Tag + MRRS quirk for Xeon 6 Ilpo Järvinen
2025-03-04 21:14 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2025-03-05 20:38 ` Dan Williams
2025-03-07 13:06 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2025-03-07 16:39 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2025-03-07 20:50 ` Dan Williams
2025-03-07 8:34 ` Lukas Wunner
2025-03-07 13:13 ` Ilpo Järvinen
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=20250307163918.GA410256@bhelgaas \
--to=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox