From: Matthew W Carlis <mattc@purestorage.com>
To: helgaas@kernel.org
Cc: ahuang12@lenovo.com, alok.a.tiwari@oracle.com,
ashishk@purestorage.com, bhelgaas@google.com,
guojinhui.liam@bytedance.com, ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com,
jiwei.sun.bj@qq.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, lukas@wunner.de, macro@orcam.me.uk,
mattc@purestorage.com, msaggi@purestorage.com,
sconnor@purestorage.com, sunjw10@lenovo.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Always lift 2.5GT/s restriction in PCIe failed link retraining
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:49:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260223224949.31354-1-mattc@purestorage.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260223173603.GA3698515@bhelgaas>
I wonder if the compromise here isn't adding a new kind of
DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_<LINKFAIL?> & putting this quirk behind it?
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 16:53:22 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> I would like it much better if it's possible to limit it to
> devices with known defects.
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 12:03:17 +0000, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> As I say it's logically impossible to figure out whether or not to apply
> such a workaround where the culprit is the downstream device
I don't think we're looking at an impossible decision to make here in terms
of whether to apply the quirk. It makes the most sense in my mind to restrict
the quirk to that Asmedia device which was upstream of the pericom switch in
the initial bug report iirc.
1) There was never a root cause so we can't say that this is in fact an issue
with the pericom switch... It could be the ASmedia switch causing the problem..
2) Even if it is a bug in the pericom, applying to only the ASmedia switch limits the
blast radius of the retrain action. It becomes unlikely that we ever see any
reports of issues from large scale users (hyper scalers, server vendors etc).
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 11:36:03 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> IIUC Matthew [1] and Alok [2] have reported issues that only happen
> when we run pcie_failed_link_retrain(). The issues seem to be with
> NVMe devices, but I don't see a root cause or a solution (other than
> skipping pcie_failed_link_retrain()).
I don't think the issue is really specific to NVMe devices realistically what
is happening is that NVMe devices happen to be hot-plug'ed way more often than
any other kind of PCIe device. Vendors who design devices/systems for hot-plug
will also do extensive hot-plug testing & due to limitations of the kernel's
heuristics, invoke the quirk when it is not desirable to do so.
-Matt
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-23 22:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-08 19:24 [PATCH v2 0/3] PCI: Always lift 2.5GT/s restriction in PCIe failed link retraining Maciej W. Rozycki
2025-12-08 19:24 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] " Maciej W. Rozycki
2026-02-05 11:00 ` [External] : " ALOK TIWARI
2025-12-08 19:24 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] PCI: Use pcie_get_speed_cap() " Maciej W. Rozycki
2026-02-05 10:59 ` [External] : " ALOK TIWARI
2025-12-08 19:24 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] PCI: Bail out early for 2.5GT/s devices " Maciej W. Rozycki
2026-02-05 10:57 ` [External] : " ALOK TIWARI
2026-02-04 17:12 ` [PING][PATCH v2 0/3] PCI: Always lift 2.5GT/s restriction " Maciej W. Rozycki
2026-02-19 3:42 ` ALOK TIWARI
2026-03-09 15:45 ` ALOK TIWARI
2026-02-19 21:26 ` [PATCH " Bjorn Helgaas
2026-02-19 22:09 ` [PATCH] " Matthew W Carlis
2026-02-19 22:53 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2026-02-20 12:03 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2026-02-23 17:36 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2026-02-23 22:49 ` Matthew W Carlis [this message]
2026-02-23 23:14 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2026-02-25 1:41 ` Matthew W Carlis
2026-02-26 22:02 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2026-03-26 19:52 ` ALOK TIWARI
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-12-01 3:52 Maciej W. Rozycki
2025-12-01 9:45 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2025-12-01 13:55 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2025-12-01 16:48 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2025-12-08 19:24 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2025-12-04 18:30 ` Matthew W Carlis
2025-12-08 19:25 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
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=20260223224949.31354-1-mattc@purestorage.com \
--to=mattc@purestorage.com \
--cc=ahuang12@lenovo.com \
--cc=alok.a.tiwari@oracle.com \
--cc=ashishk@purestorage.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=guojinhui.liam@bytedance.com \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jiwei.sun.bj@qq.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukas@wunner.de \
--cc=macro@orcam.me.uk \
--cc=msaggi@purestorage.com \
--cc=sconnor@purestorage.com \
--cc=sunjw10@lenovo.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