linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PCI/LINK: Account for BW notification in vector calculation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <88bd2962-bce4-8259-c38f-1a7e9fdde300@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:03:04 -0500
From:   Alex G <mr.nuke.me@...il.com>
To:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc:     bhelgaas@...gle.com, helgaas@...nel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        austin_bolen@...l.com, alex_gagniuc@...lteam.com,
        keith.busch@...el.com, Shyam_Iyer@...l.com, lukas@...ner.de,
        okaya@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI/LINK: Account for BW notification in vector
 calculation



On 4/23/19 10:34 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 09:33:53 -0500
> Alex G <mr.nuke.me@...il.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/22/19 7:33 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 19:05:57 -0500
>>> Alex G <mr.nuke.me@...il.com> wrote:
>>>> echo 0000:07:00.0:pcie010 |
>>>> sudo tee /sys/bus/pci_express/drivers/pcie_bw_notification/unbind
>>>
>>> That's a bad solution for users, this is meaningless tracking of a
>>> device whose driver is actively managing the link bandwidth for power
>>> purposes.
>>
>> 0.5W savings on a 100+W GPU? I agree it's meaningless.
> 
> Evidence?  Regardless, I don't have control of the driver that's making
> these changes, but the claim seems unfounded and irrelevant.

The number of 5mW/Gb/lane doesn't ring a bell? [1] [2]. Your GPU 
supports 5Gb/s, so likely using an older, more power hungry process. I 
suspect it's still within the same order of magnitude.


> I'm assigning a device to a VM [snip]
> I can see why we might want to be notified of degraded links due to signal issues,
> but what I'm reporting is that there are also entirely normal reasons
> [snip] we can't seem to tell the difference

Unfortunately, there is no way in PCI-Express to distinguish between an 
expected link bandwidth change and one due to error.

If you're using virt-manager to configure the VM, then virt-manager 
could have a checkbox to disable link bandwidth management messages. I'd 
rather we avoid kernel-side heuristics (like Lukas suggested). If you're 
confident that your link will operate as intended, and don't want 
messages about it, that's your call as a user -- we shouldn't decide 
this in the kernel.

Alex

[1] 
https://www.synopsys.com/designware-ip/technical-bulletin/reduce-power-consumption.html