linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] pci: prevent putting nvidia GPUs into lower device states on certain intel bridges

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: <20191120155301.GL11621@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Nov 2019 17:53:01 +0200
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...el.com>
To:     Karol Herbst <kherbst@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        nouveau <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        Mario Limonciello <Mario.Limonciello@...l.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] pci: prevent putting nvidia GPUs into lower device
 states on certain intel bridges

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 04:37:14PM +0100, Karol Herbst wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 4:15 PM Mika Westerberg
> <mika.westerberg@...el.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@...el.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 windows?
> > > >
> > > > 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 out
> > > > > on this level, this would probably allow us to get closer to the root
> > > > > 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.

Well you can add the quirk to acpi_rev_dmi_table[] so it goes to that
path by default. There are a bunch of similar entries for Dell machines.

Of course this does not help the non-Dell users so we would still need
to figure out the root cause.

> > 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 = to_pci_dev(dev);
> >         struct drm_device *drm_dev = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
> >         int ret;
> >
> >         if (!nouveau_pmops_runtime()) {
> >                 pm_runtime_forbid(dev);
> >                 return -EBUSY;
> >         }
> >
> >         nouveau_switcheroo_optimus_dsm();
> >         ret = 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 = 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 = to_pci_dev(dev);
> >         struct drm_device *drm_dev = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
> >         int ret;
> >
> >         if (!nouveau_pmops_runtime()) {
> >                 pm_runtime_forbid(dev);
> >                 return -EBUSY;
> >         }
> >
> >         nouveau_switcheroo_optimus_dsm();
> >         ret = nouveau_do_suspend(drm_dev, true);
> >         pci_ignore_hotplug(pdev);
> >         drm_dev->switch_power_state = 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.

OK.