Linux PCI subsystem development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
Cc: sashiko-bot@kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	sashiko@lists.linux.dev, Marco Nenciarini <mnencia@kcore.it>,
	Michal Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com>,
	Ilpo Jarvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Eric Chanudet <echanude@redhat.com>,
	Jean Guyader <jean.guyader@gmail.com>,
	Alex Williamson <alex@shazbot.org>, Sinan Kaya <okaya@kernel.org>,
	Mario Limonciello <superm1@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Drop unnecessary retries when restoring BARs
Date: Mon, 4 May 2026 12:09:41 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260504170941.GA648635@bhelgaas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <afhPkLynt7vS793r@wunner.de>

[+cc Mario]

On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 09:49:36AM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Sun, May 03, 2026 at 01:51:08PM +0000, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> > Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential
> > issue(s) to consider:
> > - [High] Removing the read-back and retry loop for BAR restoration in
> > `pci_restore_state()` introduces a risk of silent regressions for
> > hardware resuming from non-FLR resets (such as D3hot to D0 transitions
> > or custom driver resets). The commit incorrectly assumes the 60s delay
> > from `pci_dev_wait()` covers all usages, but standard PM resume paths
> > only delay for 10ms (`PCI_PM_D3_WAIT`) before calling `pci_restore_state()`.
> > Historically, hardware that needed slightly longer to accept
> > configuration writes relied on the 10x 1ms retry loop to successfully
> > restore BARs. By removing both the retry and the read-back verification,
> > BAR writes to slow devices will be silently dropped, leaving hardware
> > unconfigured and causing MMIO accesses to result in IOMMU faults or
> > kernel crashes.
> 
> Hallucination alert:
> 
> PCI_PM_D3_WAIT does not exist, it was renamed to PCI_PM_D3HOT_WAIT
> six years ago by commit 3789af9a13e5, which went into v5.10.
> 
> The macro is used in:
> 
> pci_pm_resume_noirq()
>   pci_pm_default_resume_early()
>     pci_pm_power_up_and_verify_state()
>       pci_power_up()
>         pci_dev_d3_sleep()
> 
> However before pci_power_up() calls pci_dev_d3_sleep(), it reads
> the PMCSR register and errors out if config space is inaccessible.
> 
> Hence when pci_restore_state() is invoked a bit later, config space
> can be assumed to be accessible.

I don't quite follow this.  In this path, pci_power_up() changes a
device from some low-power state to D0.  If the device was in D3hot or
D3cold, we must delay at least 10ms before any access to it (PCIe
r7.0, sec 5.9).  pci_power_up() doesn't do any delay before the PMCSR
read.  That part seems like a pre-existing issue even before this
patch.

If the PMCSR read returns PCI_POSSIBLE_ERROR(), pci_power_up() does
complain "Unable to change power state ... to D0" and return -EIO, but
pci_pm_power_up_and_verify_state() doesn't look at it, and
pci_pm_default_resume_early() continues on to pci_restore_state(), so
it looks to me like we could try to restore state to an inaccessible
device.

We do call pci_dev_wait() in pci_pm_reset(), which does a D3hot -> D0
transition; shouldn't we do the same in pci_power_up()?

  reply	other threads:[~2026-05-04 17:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-05-03 13:34 [PATCH] PCI: Drop unnecessary retries when restoring BARs Lukas Wunner
2026-05-03 13:51 ` sashiko-bot
2026-05-04  7:49   ` Lukas Wunner
2026-05-04 17:09     ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2026-05-04 19:31       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-05-04 21:17         ` Bjorn Helgaas
2026-05-05 10:43           ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-05-08  0:17             ` Bjorn Helgaas
2026-05-08 12:51               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-05-08 21:43                 ` Bjorn Helgaas

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=20260504170941.GA648635@bhelgaas \
    --to=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=alex@shazbot.org \
    --cc=echanude@redhat.com \
    --cc=ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=jean.guyader@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lukas@wunner.de \
    --cc=michal.winiarski@intel.com \
    --cc=mnencia@kcore.it \
    --cc=okaya@kernel.org \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
    --cc=sashiko@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=superm1@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