From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>,
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>,
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>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Drop unnecessary retries when restoring BARs
Date: Mon, 4 May 2026 16:17:41 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260504211741.GA659556@bhelgaas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0g3f8_7v-8W0SAbn_8vmKUJgpDbgyYMSjv03QjXJ8bCHQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 09:31:51PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2026 at 7:09 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 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).
>
> D3hot and D3cold are different in this respect, so using "or" here is
> inaccurate and confusing.
>
> Accessing the config space of a device in D3hot is entirely correct
> and doesn't require any delay.
>
> Accessing the config space of a device in D3cold is questionable
> because the device may not be accessible, but then the host bridge
> should just fail the access.
>
> The 10 ms delay is after attempting to program the device into D0 from
> D3hot (or the other way around) and it is observed as required.
Thanks for taking a look at this!
If pci_power_up() is doing D3cold -> D0, main power is initially off,
so platform_pci_set_power_state(PCI_D0) would turn on main power,
which is a Fundamental Reset leaving the device in D0uninitialized.
In general the device needs at least 100 ms after that reset before
any access, e.g., before the PMCSR read.
If pci_power_up() is doing D3hot -> D0, the device already has main
power, so I suppose platform_pci_set_power_state(PCI_D0) doesn't do
anything. The device remains in D3hot, the PMCSR read should be fine,
and the PMCSR write to transition to D0 is immediately followed by the
10 ms delay. When No_Soft_Reset == 1, this should be enough.
But when No_Soft_Reset == 0, the transition is to D0uninitialized,
which sec 2.3.1 includes as a reset condition after which the device
is permitted to return RRS.
So to me it looks like we need these delays:
- For D3cold -> D0, msleep(100) and pci_dev_wait() between
platform_pci_set_power_state(PCI_D0) and the PMCSR read, similar
to what pcie_flr() does.
Maybe platform_pci_set_power_state() takes care of some or all of
this internally?
- For D3hot -> D0 with No_Soft_Reset == 0, pci_dev_wait() after the
PMCSR write to transition to D0.
abbcf0e2a99d ("PCI: Wait for device to become ready after a power
management reset") added the similar wait in pci_pm_reset().
> > pci_power_up() doesn't do any delay before the PMCSR read.
>
> It assumes that platform_pci_set_power_state() has run and either it
> has succeeded or the config space is not accessible which is when
> PCI_POSSIBLE_ERROR() will trigger. Unfortunately, there is no
> canonical way to verify that power has been restored to the device
> other than attempting to access it.
>
> > That part seems like a pre-existing issue even before this patch.
>
> I beg to differ.
>
> > 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,
>
> In fact, pci_update_current_state() changes the power state to D3cold
> if the config space is not accessible.
>
> > 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.
>
> So the pci_restore_state() call could be avoided if the power state of
> the device was D3cold, but then the question is how much of a problem
> that is in practice.
>
> > 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()?
>
> It would be good to make them consistent, but maybe the other way around?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-04 21:17 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
2026-05-04 19:31 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-05-04 21:17 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
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=20260504211741.GA659556@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=mika.westerberg@linux.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