Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191119214955.GA223696@google.com> <CACO55tu+8VeyMw1Lb6QvNspaJm9LDgoRbooVhr0s3v9uBt=feg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191120101816.GX11621@lahna.fi.intel.com> <CAJZ5v0g4vp1C+zHU5nOVnkGsOjBvLaphK1kK=qAT6b=mK8kpsA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191120112212.GA11621@lahna.fi.intel.com> <20191120115127.GD11621@lahna.fi.intel.com>
 <CACO55tsfNOdtu5SZ-4HzO4Ji6gQtafvZ7Rm19nkPcJAgwUBFMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACO55tscD_96jUVts+MTAUsCt-fZx4O5kyhRKoo4mKoC84io8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191120120913.GE11621@lahna.fi.intel.com> <CACO55tsHy6yZQZ8PkdW8iPA7+uc5rdcEwRJwYEQ3iqu85F8Sqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191120151542.GH11621@lahna.fi.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20191120151542.GH11621@lahna.fi.intel.com>
From:   Karol Herbst <kherbst@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Nov 2019 16:37:14 +0100
Message-ID: <CACO55tvo3rbPtYJcioEgXCEQqVXcVAm-iowr9Nim=bgTdMjgLw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] pci: prevent putting nvidia GPUs into lower device
 states on certain intel bridges
To:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@intel.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Lyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        nouveau <nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>,
        Mario Limonciello <Mario.Limonciello@dell.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 4:15 PM Mika Westerberg
<mika.westerberg@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 01:11:52PM +0100, Karol Herbst wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 1:09 PM Mika Westerberg
> > <mika.westerberg@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 12:58:00PM +0100, Karol Herbst wrote:
> > > > overall, what I really want to know is, _why_ does it work on windo=
ws?
> > >
> > > So do I ;-)
> > >
> > > > Or what are we doing differently on Linux so that it doesn't work? =
If
> > > > anybody has any idea on how we could dig into this and figure it ou=
t
> > > > on this level, this would probably allow us to get closer to the ro=
ot
> > > > cause? no?
> > >
> > > Have you tried to use the acpi_rev_override parameter in your system =
and
> > > does it have any effect?
> > >
> > > Also did you try to trace the ACPI _ON/_OFF() methods? I think that
> > > should hopefully reveal something.
> > >
> >
> > I think I did in the past and it seemed to have worked, there is just
> > one big issue with this: it's a Dell specific workaround afaik, and
> > this issue plagues not just Dell, but we've seen it on HP and Lenovo
> > laptops as well, and I've heard about users having the same issues on
> > Asus and MSI laptops as well.
>
> Maybe it is not a workaround at all but instead it simply determines
> whether the system supports RTD3 or something like that (IIRC Windows 8
> started supporting it). Maybe Dell added check for Linux because at that
> time Linux did not support it.
>

the point is, it's not checking it by default, so by default you still
run into the windows 8 codepath.

> In case RTD3 is supported it invokes LKDS() which probably does the L2
> or L3 entry and this is for some reason does not work the same way in
> Linux than it does with Windows 8+.
>
> I don't remember if this happens only with nouveau or with the
> proprietary driver as well but looking at the nouveau runtime PM suspend
> hook (assuming I'm looking at the correct code):
>
> static int
> nouveau_pmops_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
> {
>         struct pci_dev *pdev =3D to_pci_dev(dev);
>         struct drm_device *drm_dev =3D pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
>         int ret;
>
>         if (!nouveau_pmops_runtime()) {
>                 pm_runtime_forbid(dev);
>                 return -EBUSY;
>         }
>
>         nouveau_switcheroo_optimus_dsm();
>         ret =3D nouveau_do_suspend(drm_dev, true);
>         pci_save_state(pdev);
>         pci_disable_device(pdev);
>         pci_ignore_hotplug(pdev);
>         pci_set_power_state(pdev, PCI_D3cold);
>         drm_dev->switch_power_state =3D DRM_SWITCH_POWER_DYNAMIC_OFF;
>         return ret;
> }
>
> Normally PCI drivers leave the PCI bus PM things to PCI core but here
> the driver does these. So I wonder if it makes any difference if we let
> the core handle all that:
>
> static int
> nouveau_pmops_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
> {
>         struct pci_dev *pdev =3D to_pci_dev(dev);
>         struct drm_device *drm_dev =3D pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
>         int ret;
>
>         if (!nouveau_pmops_runtime()) {
>                 pm_runtime_forbid(dev);
>                 return -EBUSY;
>         }
>
>         nouveau_switcheroo_optimus_dsm();
>         ret =3D nouveau_do_suspend(drm_dev, true);
>         pci_ignore_hotplug(pdev);
>         drm_dev->switch_power_state =3D DRM_SWITCH_POWER_DYNAMIC_OFF;
>         return ret;
> }
>
> and similar for the nouveau_pmops_runtime_resume().
>

yeah, I tried that at some point and it didn't help either. The reason
we call those from inside Nouveau is to support systems pre _PR where
nouveau invokes custom _DSM calls on its own. We could potentially
check for that though.