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 <quic_pmaliset@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Krishna chaitanya chundru <quic_krichai@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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.
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).
m.
[1] https://github.com/coreboot/coreboot/blob/master/src/device/pciexp_device.c#L313
> > + */
> > + scale = min(scale, max_scale);
> > + value = min(value, max_val);
> > +
> > ctl1 |= t_common_mode << 8 | scale << 29 | value << 16;
> >
> > /* Some broken devices only support dword access to L1 SS */
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >
>
> --
> மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
