[+cc Saheed, Puranjay] On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Ian Kumlien wrote: > Changes: > * Handle L0s correclty as well, making it per direction > * Moved the switch cost in to the if statement since a non L1 switch has > no additional cost. > > For L0s: > We sumarize the entire latency per direction to see if it's acceptable > for the PCIe endpoint. > > If it's not, we clear the link for the path that had too large latency. > > For L1: > Currently we check the maximum latency of upstream and downstream > per link, not the maximum for the path > > This would work if all links have the same latency, but: > endpoint -> c -> b -> a -> root (in the order we walk the path) > > If c or b has the higest latency, it will not register > > Fix this by maintaining the maximum latency value for the path > > This change fixes a regression introduced (but not caused) by: > 66ff14e59e8a (PCI/ASPM: Allow ASPM on links to PCIe-to-PCI/PCI-X Bridges) We need to include some info about the problem here, e.g., the sort of info hinted at in https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAA85sZvJQge6ETwF1GkdvK1Mpwazh_cYJcmeZVAohmt0FjbMZg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx It would be *really* nice to have "lspci -vv" output for the system when broken and when working correctly. If they were attached to a bugzilla.kernel.org entry, we could include the URL to that here. > Signed-off-by: Ian Kumlien <ian.kumlien@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c > index b17e5ffd31b1..bc512e217258 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c > @@ -434,7 +434,8 @@ static void pcie_get_aspm_reg(struct pci_dev *pdev, > > static void pcie_aspm_check_latency(struct pci_dev *endpoint) > { > - u32 latency, l1_switch_latency = 0; > + u32 latency, l1_max_latency = 0, l1_switch_latency = 0, > + l0s_latency_up = 0, l0s_latency_dw = 0; > struct aspm_latency *acceptable; > struct pcie_link_state *link; > > @@ -447,15 +448,22 @@ static void pcie_aspm_check_latency(struct pci_dev *endpoint) > acceptable = &link->acceptable[PCI_FUNC(endpoint->devfn)]; > > while (link) { > - /* Check upstream direction L0s latency */ > - if ((link->aspm_capable & ASPM_STATE_L0S_UP) && > - (link->latency_up.l0s > acceptable->l0s)) > - link->aspm_capable &= ~ASPM_STATE_L0S_UP; > - > - /* Check downstream direction L0s latency */ > - if ((link->aspm_capable & ASPM_STATE_L0S_DW) && > - (link->latency_dw.l0s > acceptable->l0s)) > - link->aspm_capable &= ~ASPM_STATE_L0S_DW; > + if (link->aspm_capable & ASPM_STATE_L0S) { > + /* Check upstream direction L0s latency */ > + if (link->aspm_capable & ASPM_STATE_L0S_UP) { > + l0s_latency_up += link->latency_up.l0s; > + if (l0s_latency_up > acceptable->l0s) > + link->aspm_capable &= ~ASPM_STATE_L0S_UP; > + } > + > + /* Check downstream direction L0s latency */ > + if (link->aspm_capable & ASPM_STATE_L0S_DW) { > + l0s_latency_dw += link->latency_dw.l0s; > + if (l0s_latency_dw > acceptable->l0s) > + link->aspm_capable &= ~ASPM_STATE_L0S_DW; > + } > + } The main point of the above is to accumulate l0s_latency_up and l0s_latency_dw along the entire path. I don't understand the additional: if (link->aspm_capable & ASPM_STATE_L0S) around the whole block. I don't think it's *wrong*, but unless I'm missing something it's unnecessary since we already check for ASPM_STATE_L0S_UP and ASPM_STATE_L0S_DW. It does make it arguably more parallel with the ASPM_STATE_L1 case below, but it complicates the diff enough that I'm not sure it's worth it. I think this could also be split off as a separate patch to fix the L0s latency checking. > /* > * Check L1 latency. > * Every switch on the path to root complex need 1 Let's take the opportunity to update the comment to add the spec citation for this additional 1 usec of L1 exit latency for every switch. I think it is PCIe r5.0, sec 5.4.1.2.2, which says: A Switch is required to initiate an L1 exit transition on its Upstream Port Link after no more than 1 μs from the beginning of an L1 exit transition on any of its Downstream Port Links. > @@ -469,11 +477,14 @@ static void pcie_aspm_check_latency(struct pci_dev *endpoint) > * L1 exit latencies advertised by a device include L1 > * substate latencies (and hence do not do any check). > */ > - latency = max_t(u32, link->latency_up.l1, link->latency_dw.l1); > - if ((link->aspm_capable & ASPM_STATE_L1) && > - (latency + l1_switch_latency > acceptable->l1)) > - link->aspm_capable &= ~ASPM_STATE_L1; > - l1_switch_latency += 1000; > + if (link->aspm_capable & ASPM_STATE_L1) { > + latency = max_t(u32, link->latency_up.l1, link->latency_dw.l1); > + l1_max_latency = max_t(u32, latency, l1_max_latency); > + if (l1_max_latency + l1_switch_latency > acceptable->l1) > + link->aspm_capable &= ~ASPM_STATE_L1; > + > + l1_switch_latency += 1000; > + } This accumulates the 1 usec delays for a Switch to propagate the exit transition from its Downstream Port to its Upstream Port, but it doesn't accumulate the L1 exit latencies themselves for the entire path, does it? I.e., we don't accumulate "latency" for the whole path. Don't we need that? > link = link->parent; > } > -- > 2.28.0 >
