On 1/19/20 8:33 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
[+cc NVMe, GPU driver folks]
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 04:10:08PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
I think we have a problem with link bandwidth change notifications
(see https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/pci/pcie/bw_notification.c).
Here's a recent bug report where Jan reported "_tons_" of these
notifications on an nvme device:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=206197
There was similar discussion involving GPU drivers at
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20190429185611.121751-2-helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx
The current solution is the CONFIG_PCIE_BW config option, which
disables the messages completely. That option defaults to "off" (no
messages), but even so, I think it's a little problematic.
Users are not really in a position to figure out whether it's safe to
enable. All they can do is experiment and see whether it works with
their current mix of devices and drivers.
I don't think it's currently useful for distros because it's a
compile-time switch, and distros cannot predict what system configs
will be used, so I don't think they can enable it.
Does anybody have proposals for making it smarter about distinguishing
real problems from intentional power management, or maybe interfaces
drivers could use to tell us when we should ignore bandwidth changes?
NVMe, GPU folks, do your drivers or devices change PCIe link
speed/width for power saving or other reasons? When CONFIG_PCIE_BW=y,
the PCI core interprets changes like that as problems that need to be
reported.
If drivers do change link speed/width, can you point me to where
that's done? Would it be feasible to add some sort of PCI core
interface so the driver could say "ignore" or "pay attention to"
subsequent link changes?
Or maybe there would even be a way to move the link change itself into
the PCI core, so the core would be aware of what's going on?
Funny thing is, I was going to suggest an in-kernel API for this.
* Driver requests lower link speed 'X'
* Link management interrupt fires
* If link speed is at or above 'X' then do not report it.
I think an "ignore" flag would defeat the purpose of having link
bandwidth reporting in the first place. If some drivers set it, and
others don't, then it would be inconsistent enough to not be useful.
A second suggestion is, if there is a way to ratelimit these messages on
a per-downstream port basis.
Alex
