linux-kernel - Re: Issues with "PCI/LINK: Report degraded links via link bandwidth notification"

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]

Date:   Tue, 21 Jan 2020 08:55:22 -0600
From:   "Alex G." <mr.nuke.me@...il.com>
To:     Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        Alexandru Gagniuc <alex_gagniuc@...lteam.com>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc:     Jan Vesely <jano.vesely@...il.com>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Austin Bolen <austin_bolen@...l.com>,
        Shyam Iyer <Shyam_Iyer@...l.com>,
        Sinan Kaya <okaya@...nel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Issues with "PCI/LINK: Report degraded links via link bandwidth
 notification"

On 1/21/20 5:10 AM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> On Mo, 2020-01-20 at 10:01 -0600, Alex G. wrote:
>>
>> On 1/19/20 8:33 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> [+cc NVMe, GPU driver folks]
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 04:10:08PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>> I think we have a problem with link bandwidth change notifications
>>>> (see https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/pci/pcie/bw_notification.c).
>>>>
>>>> Here's a recent bug report where Jan reported "_tons_" of these
>>>> notifications on an nvme device:
>>>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=206197
>>>>
>>>> There was similar discussion involving GPU drivers at
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20190429185611.121751-2-helgaas@kernel.org
>>>>
>>>> The current solution is the CONFIG_PCIE_BW config option, which
>>>> disables the messages completely.  That option defaults to "off" (no
>>>> messages), but even so, I think it's a little problematic.
>>>>
>>>> Users are not really in a position to figure out whether it's safe to
>>>> enable.  All they can do is experiment and see whether it works with
>>>> their current mix of devices and drivers.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it's currently useful for distros because it's a
>>>> compile-time switch, and distros cannot predict what system configs
>>>> will be used, so I don't think they can enable it.
>>>>
>>>> Does anybody have proposals for making it smarter about distinguishing
>>>> real problems from intentional power management, or maybe interfaces
>>>> drivers could use to tell us when we should ignore bandwidth changes?
>>>
>>> NVMe, GPU folks, do your drivers or devices change PCIe link
>>> speed/width for power saving or other reasons?  When CONFIG_PCIE_BW=y,
>>> the PCI core interprets changes like that as problems that need to be
>>> reported.
>>>
>>> If drivers do change link speed/width, can you point me to where
>>> that's done?  Would it be feasible to add some sort of PCI core
>>> interface so the driver could say "ignore" or "pay attention to"
>>> subsequent link changes?
>>>
>>> Or maybe there would even be a way to move the link change itself into
>>> the PCI core, so the core would be aware of what's going on?
>>
>> Funny thing is, I was going to suggest an in-kernel API for this.
>>     * Driver requests lower link speed 'X'
>>     * Link management interrupt fires
>>     * If link speed is at or above 'X' then do not report it.
>> I think an "ignore" flag would defeat the purpose of having link
>> bandwidth reporting in the first place. If some drivers set it, and
>> others don't, then it would be inconsistent enough to not be useful.
>>
>> A second suggestion is, if there is a way to ratelimit these messages on
>> a per-downstream port basis.
> 
> Both AMD and Nvidia GPUs have embedded controllers, which are
> responsible for the power management. IIRC those controllers can
> autonomously initiate PCIe link speed changes depending on measured bus
> load. So there is no way for the driver to signal the requested bus
> speed to the PCIe core.
> 
> I guess for the GPU usecase the best we can do is to have the driver
> opt-out of the link bandwidth notifications, as the driver knows that
> there is some autonomous entity on the endpoint mucking with the link
> parameters.

I'm confused. Are you saying that the autonomous mechanism is causing a 
link bandwidth notification?

Alex