Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 10 Sep 2020 14:17:40 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To:     "Derrick, Jonathan" <jonathan.derrick@intel.com>
Cc:     "wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com" <wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com>,
        "kw@linux.com" <kw@linux.com>,
        "hkallweit1@gmail.com" <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
        "kai.heng.feng@canonical.com" <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com>,
        "refactormyself@gmail.com" <refactormyself@gmail.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com" <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        "Mario.Limonciello@dell.com" <Mario.Limonciello@dell.com>,
        "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
        "bhelgaas@google.com" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        "Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI/ASPM: Enable ASPM for links under VMD domain
Message-ID: <20200910191740.GA806068@bjorn-Precision-5520>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0f902d555deb423ef1c79835b23c917be2633162.camel@intel.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 06:52:48PM +0000, Derrick, Jonathan wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-09-10 at 12:38 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 04:33:39PM +0000, Derrick, Jonathan wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2020-09-09 at 20:55 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 08:32:20PM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
> > > > > New Intel laptops with VMD cannot reach deeper power saving state,
> > > > > renders very short battery time.
> > > > > 
> > > > > As BIOS may not be able to program the config space for devices under
> > > > > VMD domain, ASPM needs to be programmed manually by software. This is
> > > > > also the case under Windows.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The VMD controller itself is a root complex integrated endpoint that
> > > > > doesn't have ASPM capability, so we can't propagate the ASPM settings to
> > > > > devices under it. Hence, simply apply ASPM_STATE_ALL to the links under
> > > > > VMD domain, unsupported states will be cleared out anyway.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c |  3 ++-
> > > > >  drivers/pci/quirks.c    | 11 +++++++++++
> > > > >  include/linux/pci.h     |  2 ++
> > > > >  3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
> > > > > index 253c30cc1967..dcc002dbca19 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
> > > > > @@ -624,7 +624,8 @@ static void pcie_aspm_cap_init(struct pcie_link_state *link, int blacklist)
> > > > >  		aspm_calc_l1ss_info(link, &upreg, &dwreg);
> > > > >  
> > > > >  	/* Save default state */
> > > > > -	link->aspm_default = link->aspm_enabled;
> > > > > +	link->aspm_default = parent->dev_flags & PCI_DEV_FLAGS_ENABLE_ASPM ?
> > > > > +			     ASPM_STATE_ALL : link->aspm_enabled;
> > > > 
> > > > This function is ridiculously complicated already, and I really don't
> > > > want to make it worse.
> > > > 
> > > > What exactly is the PCIe topology here?  Apparently the VMD controller
> > > > is a Root Complex Integrated Endpoint, so it's a Type 0 (non-bridge)
> > > > device.  And it has no Link, hence no Link Capabilities or Control and
> > > > hence no ASPM-related bits.  Right?
> > > 
> > > That's correct. VMD is the Type 0 device providing config/mmio
> > > apertures to another segment and MSI/X remapping. No link and no ASPM
> > > related bits.
> > > 
> > > Hierarchy is usually something like:
> > > 
> > > Segment 0           | VMD segment
> > > Root Complex -> VMD | Type 0 (RP/Bridge; physical slot) - Type 1
> > >                     | Type 0 (RP/Bridge; physical slot) - Type 1
> > > 
> > > > And the devices under the VMD controller?  I guess they are regular
> > > > PCIe Endpoints, Switch Ports, etc?  Obviously there's a Link involved
> > > > somewhere.  Does the VMD controller have some magic, non-architected
> > > > Port on the downstream side?
> > > 
> > > Correct: Type 0 and Type 1 devices, and any number of Switch ports as
> > > it's usually pinned out to physical slot.
> > > 
> > > > Does this patch enable ASPM on this magic Link between VMD and the
> > > > next device?  Configuring ASPM correctly requires knowledge and knobs
> > > > from both ends of the Link, and apparently we don't have those for the
> > > > VMD end.
> > > 
> > > VMD itself doesn't have the link to it's domain. It's really just the
> > > config/mmio aperture and MSI/X remapper. The PCIe link is between the
> > > Type 0 and Type 1 devices on the VMD domain. So fortunately the VMD
> > > itself is not the upstream part of the link.
> > > 
> > > > Or is it for Links deeper in the hierarchy?  I assume those should
> > > > just work already, although there might be issues with latency
> > > > computation, etc., because we may not be able to account for the part
> > > > of the path above VMD.
> > > 
> > > That's correct. This is for the links within the domain itself, such as
> > > between a type 0 and NVMe device.
> > 
> > OK, great.  So IIUC, below the VMD, there is a Root Port, and the Root
> > Port has a link to some Endpoint or Switch, e.g., an NVMe device.  And
> > we just want to enable ASPM on that link.
> > 
> > That should not be a special case; we should be able to make this so
> > it Just Works.  Based on this patch, I guess the reason it doesn't
> > work is because link->aspm_enabled for that link isn't set correctly.
> > 
> > So is this just a consequence of us depending on the initial Link
> > Control value from BIOS?  That seems like something we shouldn't
> > really depend on.
> > 
> That's the crux. There's always pcie_aspm=force.
> Something I've wondered is if there is a way we could 'discover' if the
> link is ASPM safe?

Sure.  Link Capabilities is supposed to tell us that.  If aspm.c
depends on the BIOS settings, I think that's a design mistake.

But what CONFIG_PCIEASPM_* setting are you using?  The default
is CONFIG_PCIEASPM_DEFAULT, which literally means "Use the BIOS
defaults".  If you're using that, and BIOS doesn't enable ASPM below
VMD, I guess aspm.c will leave it disabled, and that seems like it
would be the expected behavior.

Does "pcie_aspm=force" really help you?  I don't see any uses of it
that should apply to your situation.

Bjorn