Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220516165740.6256af51.alex.williamson@redhat.com>
 <20220518115432.76183-1-windy.bi.enflame@gmail.com> <20220520064148.GA20418@wunner.de>
 <CAGdb+H2_pX4TzG=sJ8XE6KiyWW9niJQawCbcDN2byxDfybukiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220521124910.GA13556@wunner.de> <CAGdb+H19bfbXM1cPJvhh6gixJbF7Sk=v53d9VpvWY8HEs0mSKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220523142042.GA19286@wunner.de>
In-Reply-To: <20220523142042.GA19286@wunner.de>
From:   Sheng Bi <windy.bi.enflame@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 May 2022 23:59:23 +0800
Message-ID: <CAGdb+H0qnC4noBa_=N3oQW88+dgXYtA7gqJ5qiD2g7Ywd+2K=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PCI: Fix no-op wait after secondary bus reset
To:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 10:20 PM Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de> wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 22, 2022 at 01:37:50AM +0800, Sheng Bi wrote:
> > On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 8:49 PM Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de> wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 04:36:10PM +0800, Sheng Bi wrote:
> > > > If so, I also want to align the polling things mentioned in the
> > > > question from Alex, since pci_dev_wait() is also used for reset
> > > > functions other than SBR. To Bjorn, Alex, Lucas, how do you think if
> > > > we need to change the polling in pci_dev_wait() to 20ms intervals, or
> > > > keep binary exponential back-off with probable unexpected extra
> > > > timeout delay.
> > >
> > > The exponential backoff should probably be capped at some point
> > > to avoid excessive wait delays.  I guess the rationale for
> > > exponential backoff is to not poll too frequently.
> > > Capping at 20 msec or 100 msec may be reasonable, i.e.:
> > >
> > > -               delay *= 2;
> > > +               delay = min(delay * 2, 100);
> >
> > Capping at 20 or 100 msec seems reasonable to me. Btw, since 20 msec
> > is not a long time in these scenarios, how about changing to a fixed
> > 20 msec interval?
>
> The callers of pci_dev_wait() seem to wait for the spec-defined
> delay and only call pci_dev_wait() to allow for an additional period
> that non-compliant devices may need.  That extra delay can be expected
> to be low, which is why it makes sense to start with a short poll interval
> and gradually extend it.  So the algorithm seems to be reasonable and
> I wouldn't recommend changing it to a constant interval unless that
> fixes something which is currently broken.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lukas

Thanks Lukas!

From my perspective, there is nothing broken so far, but a theoretical
unexpected extra delay while the timeout has passed. So I will keep
pci_dev_wait() as previously with exponential backoff in this patch,
and change the pci_bridge_secondary_bus_wait() with "jiffies" and
pci_dev_wait().

Thanks,

windy