public inbox for linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: LeoLiu-oc <LeoLiu-oc@zhaoxin.com>
Cc: mahesh@linux.ibm.com, oohall@gmail.com, bhelgaas@google.com,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, CobeChen@zhaoxin.com,
	TonyWWang@zhaoxin.com, ErosZhang@zhaoxin.com,
	Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: dpc: Increase pciehp waiting time for DPC recovery
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2026 14:21:40 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260123202140.GA84703@bhelgaas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260123104034.429060-1-LeoLiu-oc@zhaoxin.com>

[+cc Lukas, pciehp expert and author of a97396c6eb13]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 06:40:34PM +0800, LeoLiu-oc wrote:
> Commit a97396c6eb13 ("PCI: pciehp: Ignore Link Down/Up caused by DPC")
> amended PCIe hotplug to not bring down the slot upon Data Link Layer State
> Changed events caused by Downstream Port Containment.
> 
> However, PCIe hotplug (pciehp) waits up to 4 seconds before assuming that
> DPC recovery has failed and disabling the slot. This timeout period is
> insufficient for some PCIe devices.
> For example, the E810 dual-port network card driver needs to take over
> 10 seconds to execute its err_detected() callback.
> Since this exceeds the maximum wait time allowed for DPC recovery by the
> hotplug IRQ threads, a race condition occurs between the hotplug thread and
> the dpc_handler() thread.

Add blank lines between paragraphs.

Include the name of the E810 driver so we can easily find the
.err_detected() callback in question.  Actually, including the *name*
of that callback would be a very direct way of doing this :)

I guess the problem this fixes is that there was a PCIe error that
triggered DPC, and the E810 .err_detected() works but takes longer
than expected, which results in pciehp disabling the slot when it
doesn't need to?  So the user basically sees a dead E810 device?

It seems unfortunate that we have this dependency on the time allowed
for .err_detected() to execute.  It's nice if adding arbitrary delay
doesn't break things, but maybe we can't always achieve that.

I see that pci_dpc_recovered() is called from pciehp_ist().  Are we
prepared for long delays there?

> Signed-off-by: LeoLiu-oc <LeoLiu-oc@zhaoxin.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c
> index fc18349614d7..08b5f275699a 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c
> @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ bool pci_dpc_recovered(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>  	 * but reports indicate that DPC completes within 4 seconds.
>  	 */
>  	wait_event_timeout(dpc_completed_waitqueue, dpc_completed(pdev),
> -			   msecs_to_jiffies(4000));
> +			   msecs_to_jiffies(16000));

It looks like this breaks the connection between the "completes within
4 seconds" comment and the 4000ms wait_event timeout.

>  	return test_and_clear_bit(PCI_DPC_RECOVERED, &pdev->priv_flags);
>  }
> -- 
> 2.43.0
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2026-01-23 20:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-01-23 10:40 [PATCH] PCI: dpc: Increase pciehp waiting time for DPC recovery LeoLiu-oc
2026-01-23 20:21 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2026-01-28 10:07   ` LeoLiu-oc
2026-01-28 19:48     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2026-02-02  5:55       ` LeoLiu-oc
2026-01-30 11:59     ` Lukas Wunner
2026-02-02  6:00       ` LeoLiu-oc
2026-02-02  9:02         ` Lukas Wunner
2026-02-03 11:23           ` Przemek Kitszel
2026-02-04  2:10           ` LeoLiu-oc
2026-02-06  8:13             ` LeoLiu-oc

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=20260123202140.GA84703@bhelgaas \
    --to=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=CobeChen@zhaoxin.com \
    --cc=ErosZhang@zhaoxin.com \
    --cc=LeoLiu-oc@zhaoxin.com \
    --cc=TonyWWang@zhaoxin.com \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=lukas@wunner.de \
    --cc=mahesh@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=oohall@gmail.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