From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D80A0C10F1B for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2022 14:59:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232739AbiLUO7s (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Dec 2022 09:59:48 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44182 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231888AbiLUO7q (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Dec 2022 09:59:46 -0500 Received: from mail-io1-xd29.google.com (mail-io1-xd29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d29]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A63ED76 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2022 06:59:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io1-xd29.google.com with SMTP id y4so8145417iof.0 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2022 06:59:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=VSTSYuF2IGWHhVL1H4R/UBsYbY3GgJPyleeG4rMWVfE=; b=EbRH3h1/sjS6Kos+PZMzeKjbriG50DkBaoLywTVgC7IYaW0bF8rQjVcYd5sHTC2IRF istKKDdWOplUTKrD73Z7umq9PSxGHv7WVLy/jkyJgrXxEoL4WsUofTL964FUD6dRzvc2 OEBFSWplL5+ztuzB7aIMv643KEt3ZtY2tStkc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=VSTSYuF2IGWHhVL1H4R/UBsYbY3GgJPyleeG4rMWVfE=; b=TQx5CnJzlgjQqIbpY+L52tClWiNxe9QjfTduGxLCkbEhad8cnKQZ5DNqQQAq5Yj94+ Z3ujia8/zh5gs0xq7bZOVPKPHG4xtLcw1S4qT96bX3gvcrNgscHT5zmaRsP9xIN1hOmI T9N9rVLdxHySosKBkXUKRhqdDEgZuZ5PtgH2fX3LfmB9Rnr+1TPmdvsTxcGuhtcMbcX8 0HS5r7IsBrvmmcTl0ePo21O7yavOvw8/2FDARxWS22FQtNijInLHoXKNzVhFZu+yR3Fc 2auTQ0iBBrv35NifyyCwb3Zs/PQYBeGa5ooDNphuWlpilEJwUWgaim7YRavktGi2wTnq fIcQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2koz+LwtFYxjrV1HIQHBwXhaZeowox6qfjaIhaS38kQYEUH3Yk/c TzshqDjAha8KsrAxgy3aU8ipXA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXs6kcBBuwh3xgUFBvquqCWpgvIdrC1wD2pI6lE+JKWx5qb+rt5psMSJfoUy1s/8t4OUaAZqvg== X-Received: by 2002:a6b:c747:0:b0:6e0:380b:b900 with SMTP id x68-20020a6bc747000000b006e0380bb900mr1397553iof.12.1671634783929; Wed, 21 Dec 2022 06:59:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (30.23.70.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.70.23.30]) by smtp.gmail.com with UTF8SMTPSA id c59-20020a029641000000b0039c8a9d4a82sm2768283jai.108.2022.12.21.06.59.43 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 21 Dec 2022 06:59:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2022 14:59:42 +0000 From: Matthias Kaehlcke To: Manivannan Sadhasivam Cc: Krishna chaitanya chundru , helgaas@kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, quic_vbadigan@quicinc.com, quic_hemantk@quicinc.com, quic_nitegupt@quicinc.com, quic_skananth@quicinc.com, quic_ramkri@quicinc.com, swboyd@chromium.org, dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org, Prasad Malisetty , Bjorn Helgaas , "Saheed O. Bolarinwa" , Vidya Sagar , Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Wilczy=C5=84ski?= , Kai-Heng Feng Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] PCI/ASPM: Update LTR threshold based upon reported max latencies Message-ID: References: <1663315719-21563-1-git-send-email-quic_krichai@quicinc.com> <20221205112500.GB4514@thinkpad> <20221221054953.GA2922@thinkpad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20221221054953.GA2922@thinkpad> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 11:19:53AM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 06:18:36PM +0000, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 04:55:00PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 01:38:37PM +0530, Krishna chaitanya chundru wrote: > > > > In ASPM driver, LTR threshold scale and value are updated based on > > > > tcommon_mode and t_poweron values. In Kioxia NVMe L1.2 is failing due to > > > > LTR threshold scale and value are greater values than max snoop/non-snoop > > > > value. > > > > > > > > Based on PCIe r4.1, sec 5.5.1, L1.2 substate must be entered when > > > > reported snoop/no-snoop values is greater than or equal to > > > > LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD value. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Prasad Malisetty > > > > Signed-off-by: Krishna chaitanya chundru > > > > Acked-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam > > > > > > I take my Ack back... Sorry that I did not look into this patch closer. > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > I am taking this patch forward as prasad is no more working with our org. > > > > changes since v6: > > > > - Rebasing with pci/next. > > > > changes since v5: > > > > - no changes, just reposting as standalone patch instead of reply to > > > > previous patch. > > > > Changes since v4: > > > > - Replaced conditional statements with min and max. > > > > changes since v3: > > > > - Changed the logic to include this condition "snoop/nosnoop > > > > latencies are not equal to zero and lower than LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD" > > > > Changes since v2: > > > > - Replaced LTRME logic with max snoop/no-snoop latencies check. > > > > Changes since v1: > > > > - Added missing variable declaration in v1 patch > > > > --- > > > > drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c > > > > index 928bf64..2bb8470 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c > > > > @@ -486,13 +486,35 @@ static void aspm_calc_l1ss_info(struct pcie_link_state *link, > > > > { > > > > struct pci_dev *child = link->downstream, *parent = link->pdev; > > > > u32 val1, val2, scale1, scale2; > > > > + u32 max_val, max_scale, max_snp_scale, max_snp_val, max_nsnp_scale, max_nsnp_val; > > > > u32 t_common_mode, t_power_on, l1_2_threshold, scale, value; > > > > u32 ctl1 = 0, ctl2 = 0; > > > > u32 pctl1, pctl2, cctl1, cctl2; > > > > + u16 ltr; > > > > + u16 max_snoop_lat, max_nosnoop_lat; > > > > > > > > if (!(link->aspm_support & ASPM_STATE_L1_2_MASK)) > > > > return; > > > > > > > > + ltr = pci_find_ext_capability(child, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_LTR); > > > > + if (!ltr) > > > > + return; > > > > + > > > > + pci_read_config_word(child, ltr + PCI_LTR_MAX_SNOOP_LAT, &max_snoop_lat); > > > > + pci_read_config_word(child, ltr + PCI_LTR_MAX_NOSNOOP_LAT, &max_nosnoop_lat); > > > > + > > > > + max_snp_scale = (max_snoop_lat & PCI_LTR_SCALE_MASK) >> PCI_LTR_SCALE_SHIFT; > > > > + max_snp_val = max_snoop_lat & PCI_LTR_VALUE_MASK; > > > > + > > > > + max_nsnp_scale = (max_nosnoop_lat & PCI_LTR_SCALE_MASK) >> PCI_LTR_SCALE_SHIFT; > > > > + max_nsnp_val = max_nosnoop_lat & PCI_LTR_VALUE_MASK; > > > > + > > > > + /* choose the greater max scale value between snoop and no snoop value*/ > > > > + max_scale = max(max_snp_scale, max_nsnp_scale); > > > > + > > > > + /* choose the greater max value between snoop and no snoop scales */ > > > > + max_val = max(max_snp_val, max_nsnp_val); > > > > + > > > > /* Choose the greater of the two Port Common_Mode_Restore_Times */ > > > > val1 = (parent_l1ss_cap & PCI_L1SS_CAP_CM_RESTORE_TIME) >> 8; > > > > val2 = (child_l1ss_cap & PCI_L1SS_CAP_CM_RESTORE_TIME) >> 8; > > > > @@ -525,6 +547,14 @@ static void aspm_calc_l1ss_info(struct pcie_link_state *link, > > > > */ > > > > l1_2_threshold = 2 + 4 + t_common_mode + t_power_on; > > > > encode_l12_threshold(l1_2_threshold, &scale, &value); > > > > + > > > > + /* > > > > + * Based on PCIe r4.1, sec 5.5.1, L1.2 substate must be entered when reported > > > > + * snoop/no-snoop values are greater than or equal to LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD value. > > > > > > Apart from the bug in calculating the LTR_Threshold as reported by Matthias > > > and Bjorn, I'm wondering if we are covering up for the device firmware issue. > > > > Yes, I think the patch is doing exactly that. > > > > > As per section 6.18, if the device reports snoop/no-snoop scale/value as 0, then > > > it implies that the device won't tolerate any additional delays from the host. > > > > > > In that case, how can we allow the link to go into L1.2 since that would incur > > > high delay compared to L1.1? > > > > I had the same doubt, a value of 0 doesn't make sense, if it literally means > > 'max delay of 0ns'. I did some debugging around this issue. One thing I found > > is that there are NVMe models that don't have issues with entering L1.2 with > > max (no-)snoop latencies of 0. From that I infer that a value of 0 does not > > literally mean a max delay of 0ns. > > > > This is interesting. > > > The PCIe spec doesn't say specifically what a value of 0 in those registers > > means, but chapter "6.18 Latency Tolerance Reporting (LTR) Mechanism" of the > > PCIe 4.0 base spec says something about the latency requirements in LTR > > messages: > > > > Setting the value and scale fields to all 0’s indicates that the device will > > be impacted by any delay and that the best possible service is requested. > > > > With that and the fact that several NVMe's don't have issues with all 0 values > > I deduce that all 0's means 'best possible service' and not 'max latency of > > 0ns'. It seems the Kioxia firmware has a bug which interprets all 0 values as > > a max latency of 0ns. > > > > Another finding is that the Kioxia NVMe can enter L1.2 if the max latencies > > are set to values >= the LTR threshold. Unfortunately that isn't a viable > > fix for existing devices in the field, devices under development could possibly > > adjust the latencies in the BIOS (coreboot code [1] suggests that this is done > > at least in some cases). > > > > I fully agree that it is a firmware issue. And yes, we should refrain to fixes > in the bootloader if possible. > > Another option would be to add a quirk for specific devices in the ASPM code. > But in that case, I'm not sure what would be the optimal snoop/no-snoop value > that could be used. I had/have the same doubt. > There is another issue where if we have some other device on the same bus > that explicitly requires 0ns latency. Would that be reasonable requirement, i.e. can 0ns latency ever be achieved?