linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH net-next v5 0/3] r8169: Implement dynamic ASPM mechanism for recent 1.0/2.5Gbps Realtek NICs

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:   Thu, 7 Oct 2021 14:10:57 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>
Cc:     Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        nic_swsd <nic_swsd@...ltek.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Anthony Wong <anthony.wong@...onical.com>,
        Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH net-next v5 0/3] r8169: Implement dynamic ASPM
 mechanism for recent 1.0/2.5Gbps Realtek NICs

On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 12:17:26PM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 6:09 AM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 11:44:14PM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
> > > The purpose of the series is to get comments and reviews so we can merge
> > > and test the series in downstream kernel.
> > >
> > > The latest Realtek vendor driver and its Windows driver implements a
> > > feature called "dynamic ASPM" which can improve performance on it's
> > > ethernet NICs.
> > >
> > > Heiner Kallweit pointed out the potential root cause can be that the
> > > buffer is too small for its ASPM exit latency.
> >
> > I looked at the lspci data in your bugzilla
> > (https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214307).
> >
> > L1.2 is enabled, which requires the Latency Tolerance Reporting
> > capability, which helps determine when the Link will be put in L1.2.
> > IIUC, these are analogous to the DevCap "Acceptable Latency" values.
> > Zero latency values indicate the device will be impacted by any delay
> > (PCIe r5.0, sec 6.18).
> >
> > Linux does not currently program those values, so the values there
> > must have been set by the BIOS.  On the working AMD system, they're
> > set to 1048576ns, while on the broken Intel system, they're set to
> > 3145728ns.
> >
> > I don't really understand how these values should be computed, and I
> > think they depend on some electrical characteristics of the Link, so
> > I'm not sure it's *necessarily* a problem that they are different.
> > But a 3X difference does seem pretty large.
> >
> > So I'm curious whether this is related to the problem.  Here are some
> > things we could try on the broken Intel system:
> 
> Original network speed, tested via iperf3:
> TX: ~255 Mbps
> RX: ~490 Mbps
> 
> >   - What happens if you disable ASPM L1.2 using
> >     /sys/devices/pci*/.../link/l1_2_aspm?
> 
> TX: ~670 Mbps
> RX: ~670 Mbps
> 
> >   - If that doesn't work, what happens if you also disable PCI-PM L1.2
> >     using /sys/devices/pci*/.../link/l1_2_pcipm?
> 
> Same as only disables l1_2_aspm.
> 
> >   - If either of the above makes things work, then at least we know
> >     the problem is sensitive to L1.2.
> 
> Right now the downstream kernel disables ASPM L1.2 as workaround.
> 
> >   - Then what happens if you use setpci to set the LTR Latency
> >     registers to 0, then re-enable ASPM L1.2 and PCI-PM L1.2?  This
> >     should mean the Realtek device wants the best possible service and
> >     the Link probably won't spend much time in L1.2.
> 
> # setpci -s 01:00.0 ECAP_LTR+4.w=0x0
> # setpci -s 01:00.0 ECAP_LTR+6.w=0x0
> 
> Then re-enable ASPM L1.2, the issue persists - the network speed is
> still very slow.
> 
> >   - What happens if you set the LTR Latency registers to 0x1001
> >     (should be the same as on the AMD system)?
> 
> Same slow speed here.

Thanks a lot for indulging my curiosity and testing this.  So I guess
you confirmed that specifically ASPM L1.2 is the issue, which makes
sense given the current downstream kernel workaround.