From: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
To: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
Cc: netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Anthony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>,
Karol Kolacinski <karol.kolacinski@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-net] ice: ensure periodic output start time is in the future
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 14:59:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250215145941.GQ1615191@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250212-jk-gnrd-ptp-pin-patches-v1-1-7cbae692ac97@intel.com>
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 03:54:39PM -0800, Jacob Keller wrote:
> From: Karol Kolacinski <karol.kolacinski@intel.com>
>
> On E800 series hardware, if the start time for a periodic output signal is
> programmed into GLTSYN_TGT_H and GLTSYN_TGT_L registers, the hardware logic
> locks up and the periodic output signal never starts. Any future attempt to
> reprogram the clock function is futile as the hardware will not reset until
> a power on.
>
> The ice_ptp_cfg_perout function has logic to prevent this, as it checks if
> the requested start time is in the past. If so, a new start time is
> calculated by rounding up.
>
> Since commit d755a7e129a5 ("ice: Cache perout/extts requests and check
> flags"), the rounding is done to the nearest multiple of the clock period,
> rather than to a full second. This is more accurate, since it ensures the
> signal matches the user request precisely.
>
> Unfortunately, there is a race condition with this rounding logic. If the
> current time is close to the multiple of the period, we could calculate a
> target time that is extremely soon. It takes time for the software to
> program the registers, during which time this requested start time could
> become a start time in the past. If that happens, the periodic output
> signal will lock up.
>
> For large enough periods, or for the logic prior to the mentioned commit,
> this is unlikely. However, with the new logic rounding to the period and
> with a small enough period, this becomes inevitable.
>
> For example, attempting to enable a 10MHz signal requires a period of 100
> nanoseconds. This means in the *best* case, we have 99 nanoseconds to
> program the clock output. This is essentially impossible, and thus such a
> small period practically guarantees that the clock output function will
> lock up.
>
> To fix this, add some slop to the clock time used to check if the start
> time is in the past. Because it is not critical that output signals start
> immediately, but it *is* critical that we do not brick the function, 0.5
> seconds is selected. This does mean that any requested output will be
> delayed by at least 0.5 seconds.
>
> This slop is applied before rounding, so that we always round up to the
> nearest multiple of the period that is at least 0.5 seconds in the future,
> ensuring a minimum of 0.5 seconds to program the clock output registers.
>
> Finally, to ensure that the hardware registers programming the clock output
> complete in a timely manner, add a write flush to the end of
> ice_ptp_write_perout. This ensures we don't risk any issue with PCIe
> transaction batching.
>
> Strictly speaking, this fixes a race condition all the way back at the
> initial implementation of periodic output programming, as it is
> theoretically possible to trigger this bug even on the old logic when
> always rounding to a full second. However, the window is narrow, and the
> code has been refactored heavily since then, making a direct backport not
> apply cleanly.
>
> Fixes: d755a7e129a5 ("ice: Cache perout/extts requests and check flags")
> Signed-off-by: Karol Kolacinski <karol.kolacinski@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
Thanks for the excellent patch description.
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-15 14:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-12 23:54 [PATCH iwl-net] ice: ensure periodic output start time is in the future Jacob Keller
2025-02-15 14:59 ` Simon Horman [this message]
2025-02-19 22:30 ` Jacob Keller
2025-02-20 10:36 ` Simon Horman
2025-02-24 11:36 ` Przemek Kitszel
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-02-19 22:13 Jacob Keller
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=20250215145941.GQ1615191@kernel.org \
--to=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com \
--cc=jacob.e.keller@intel.com \
--cc=karol.kolacinski@intel.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).