Re: [PATCH] PCI: Do not use pcie_get_speed_cap() to determine when to start waiting

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 7:36 AM Mika Westerberg
<mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 07:24:37AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:45 AM Mika Westerberg
> > <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 05:42:28PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:32:45AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > > > Kai-Heng Feng reported that it takes long time (>1s) to resume
> > > > > Thunderbolt connected PCIe devices from both runtime suspend and system
> > > > > sleep (s2idle).
> > > > >
> > > > > These PCIe downstream ports the second link capability (PCI_EXP_LNKCAP2)
> > > > > announces support for speeds > 5 GT/s but it is then capped by the
> > > > > second link control (PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2) register to 2.5 GT/s. This
> > > > > possiblity was not considered in pci_bridge_wait_for_secondary_bus() so
> > > > > it ended up waiting for 1100 ms as these ports do not support active
> > > > > link layer reporting either.
> > > > >
> > > > > PCIe spec 5.0 section 6.6.1 mandates that we must wait minimum of 100 ms
> > > > > before sending configuration request to the device below, if the port
> > > > > does not support speeds > 5 GT/s, and if it does we first need to wait
> > > > > for the data link layer to become active before waiting for that 100 ms.
> > > > >
> > > > > PCIe spec 5.0 section 7.5.3.6 further says that all downstream ports
> > > > > that support speeds > 5 GT/s must support active link layer reporting so
> > > > > instead of looking for the speed we can check for the active link layer
> > > > > reporting capability and determine how to wait based on that (as they go
> > > > > hand in hand).
> > > >
> > > > I can't quite tell what the defect is here.
> > > >
> > > > I assume you're talking about this text from sec 6.6.1:
> > > >
> > > >   - With a Downstream Port that does not support Link speeds greater
> > > >     than 5.0 GT/s, software must wait a minimum of 100 ms before
> > > >     sending a Configuration Request to the device immediately below
> > > >     that Port.
> > > >
> > > >   - With a Downstream Port that supports Link speeds greater than 5.0
> > > >     GT/s, software must wait a minimum of 100 ms after Link training
> > > >     completes before sending a Configuration Request to the device
> > > >     immediately below that Port. Software can determine when Link
> > > >     training completes by polling the Data Link Layer Link Active bit
> > > >     or by setting up an associated interrupt (see Section 6.7.3.3 ).
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand what Link Control 2 has to do with this.  The spec
> > > > talks about ports *supporting* certain link speeds, which sounds to me
> > > > like the Link Capabilities.  It doesn't say anything about the current
> > > > or target link speed.
> > >
> > > PCIe 5.0 page 764 recommends using Supported Link Speeds Vector in Link
> > > Capabilities 2 register and that's what pcie_get_speed_cap() is doing.
> > >
> > > However, we can avoid figuring the speed altogether by checking the
> > > dev->link_active_reporting instead because that needs to be implemented
> > > by all Downstream Ports that supports speeds > 5 GT/s (PCIe 5.0 page 735).
> >
> > I understand that part.  But the code as-is matches sec 6.6.1, which
> > makes it easy to understand.  Checking link_active_reporting instead
> > makes it harder to understand because it makes it one step removed
> > from 6.6.1.  And link_active_reporting must be set for ports that
> > support > 5 GT/s, but it must *also* be set in some hotplug cases, so
> > that further complicates the connection between it and 6.6.1.
> >
> > And apparently there's an actual defect, and I don't understand what
> > that is yet.  It sounds like we agree that pcie_get_speed_cap() is
> > doing the right thing.  Is there something in
> > pci_bridge_wait_for_secondary_bus() that doesn't match sec 6.6.1?
>
> The defect is that some downstream PCIe ports on a system Kai-Heng is
> using have Supported Link Speeds Vector with > 5GT/s and it does not
> support active link reporting so the currect code ends up waiting 1100 ms
> slowing down resume time.

That sounds like a hardware defect that should be worked around with a
quirk or something.  If we just restructure the code to avoid the
problem, we're likely to reintroduce it later because there's no hint
in the code about this problem.

> The Target Link Speed of this port (in Link Control 2) has the speed
> capped to 2.5 GT/s.

I saw you mentioned this before, but I don't understand yet why it's
relevant.  The spec says "supported,", not "current" or "target".



[Index of Archives]     [DMA Engine]     [Linux Coverity]     [Linux USB]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Greybus]

  Powered by Linux