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: <CACO55ttXJgXG32HzYP_uJDfQ6T-d8zQaGjXK_AZD3kF0Rmft4g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Nov 2019 13:52:57 +0100
From:   Karol Herbst <kherbst@...hat.com>
To:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...el.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 Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:46 PM Mika Westerberg
<mika.westerberg@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:34:22PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:28 PM Mika Westerberg
> > <mika.westerberg@...el.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:29:33PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > last week or so I found systems where the GPU was under the "PCI
> > > > > Express Root Port" (name from lspci) and on those systems all of that
> > > > > seems to work. So I am wondering if it's indeed just the 0x1901 one,
> > > > > which also explains Mikas case that Thunderbolt stuff works as devices
> > > > > never get populated under this particular bridge controller, but under
> > > > > those "Root Port"s
> > > >
> > > > It always is a PCIe port, but its location within the SoC may matter.
> > >
> > > Exactly. Intel hardware has PCIe ports on CPU side (these are called
> > > PEG, PCI Express Graphics, ports), and the PCH side. I think the IP is
> > > still the same.
> > >

yeah, I meant the bridge controller with the ID 0x1901 is on the CPU
side. And if the Nvidia GPU is on a port on the PCH side it all seems
to work just fine.

> > > > Also some custom AML-based power management is involved and that may
> > > > be making specific assumptions on the configuration of the SoC and the
> > > > GPU at the time of its invocation which unfortunately are not known to
> > > > us.
> > > >
> > > > However, it looks like the AML invoked to power down the GPU from
> > > > acpi_pci_set_power_state() gets confused if it is not in PCI D0 at
> > > > that point, so it looks like that AML tries to access device memory on
> > > > the GPU (beyond the PCI config space) or similar which is not
> > > > accessible in PCI power states below D0.
> > >
> > > Or the PCI config space of the GPU when the parent root port is in D3hot
> > > (as it is the case here). Also then the GPU config space is not
> > > accessible.
> >
> > Why would the parent port be in D3hot at that point?  Wouldn't that be
> > a suspend ordering violation?
>
> No. We put the GPU into D3hot first, then the root port and then turn
> off the power resource (which is attached to the root port) resulting
> the topology entering D3cold.
>

If the kernel does a D0 -> D3hot -> D0 cycle this works as well, but
the power savings are way lower, so I kind of prefer skipping D3hot
instead of D3cold. Skipping D3hot doesn't seem to make any difference
in power savings in my testing.

> > > I took a look at the HP Omen ACPI tables which has similar problem and
> > > there is also check for Windows 7 (but not Linux) so I think one
> > > alternative workaround would be to add these devices into
> > > acpi_osi_dmi_table[] where .callback is set to dmi_disable_osi_win8 (or
> > > pass 'acpi_osi="!Windows 2012"' in the kernel command line).
> >
> > I'd like to understand the facts that have been established so far
> > before deciding what to do about them. :-)
>
> Yes, I agree :)
>

Yeah.. and I think those would be too many as we know of several
models with this laptops from Lenovo, Dell and HP and random other
models from random other OEMs. I think we won't ever be able to
blacklist all models if we go that way as those might be just way too
many. Also I know from some reports on bumblebee bugs (hitting the
same issue essentially) that the acpi_osi overwrite didn't help every
user.