From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
"open list:PCI SUBSYSTEM" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI/ASPM: Enable L0s/L1 for removable devices when BIOS didn't configure ASPM
Date: Tue, 5 May 2026 11:08:14 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <66ceb34e-17a0-4ff5-8534-9067d4e9b32c@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260505160525.GA733339@bhelgaas>
On 5/5/26 11:05, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 05:52:46PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>> When comparing lspci output between Windows and Linux for hotplugged
>> Thunderbolt 5 eGPU devices, Windows enables ASPM L1 but Linux doesn't:
>>
>> Windows: LnkCtl: ASPM L1 Enabled
>> Linux: LnkCtl: ASPM Disabled
>>
>> This difference in ASPM configuration can cause behavioral differences
>> between the two operating systems for the same hardware.
>
> A tangent, not a comment on the patch itself, but what sort of
> behavioral differences are these? If ASPM is working correctly, the
> only differences *should* be in power consumption and performance.
This originally stemmed from a significant performance difference that
was observed between Windows and Linux with eGPUs. The link in the
patch points at that bug if you want to look more closely at it.
I was hopeful that aligning ASPM would align the behavior, but alas this
didn't.
It was still a difference that I figured we should discuss whether it
should be changed to be consistent.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-05 16:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-04 22:52 [PATCH] PCI/ASPM: Enable L0s/L1 for removable devices when BIOS didn't configure ASPM Mario Limonciello
2026-05-05 16:05 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2026-05-05 16:08 ` Mario Limonciello [this message]
2026-05-05 21:42 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2026-05-06 3:36 ` Mario Limonciello
2026-05-05 18:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-05-06 4:53 ` Mika Westerberg
2026-05-06 15:10 ` Mario Limonciello
2026-05-06 15:27 ` 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=66ceb34e-17a0-4ff5-8534-9067d4e9b32c@amd.com \
--to=mario.limonciello@amd.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukas@wunner.de \
--cc=rafael@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