On Thu, 15 Aug 2024, Matthew W Carlis wrote: > > Well, in principle in a setup with reliable links the LBMS bit may never > > be set, e.g. this system of mine has been in 24/7 operation since the last > > reboot 410 days ago and for the devices that support Link Active reporting > > it shows: > > ... > > so out of 11 devices 6 have the LBMS bit clear. But then 5 have it set, > > perhaps worryingly, so of course you're right, that it will get set in the > > field, though it's not enough by itself for your problem to trigger. > > The way I look at it is that its essentially a probability distribution with time, > but I try to avoid learning too much about the physical layer because I would find > myself debugging more hardware issues lol. I also don't think LBMS/LABS being set > by itself is very interesting without knowing the rate at which it is being set. Agreed. Ilpo's upcoming bandwidth controller will hopefully give us such data. > FWIW I have seen some devices in the past going into recovery state many times a > second & still never downtrain, but at the same time they were setting the > LBMS/LABS bits which maybe not quite spec compliant. > > I would like to help test these changes, but I would like to avoid having to test > each mentioned change individually. Does anyone have any preferences in how I batch > the patches for testing? Would it be ok if I just pulled them all together on one go? Certainly fine with me, especially as 3/4 and 4/4 aren't really related to your failure scenario, and then you need 1/4 and 2/4 both at a time to address both aspects of the issue you have reported. Maciej
