Message-ID: <5915557.lOV4Wx5bFT@kreacher>
Date:   Tue, 10 Jan 2023 19:02:15 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@....com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mehta Sanju <Sanju.Mehta@....com>,
        Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] PCI/ACPI: PCI/ACPI: Validate devices with power resources support D3

On Monday, January 2, 2023 5:59:36 PM CET Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 5:34:19 PM CET Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, November 21, 2022 11:17:42 PM CET Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 03:33:00PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Friday, November 18, 2022 10:13:39 PM CET Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 9:23 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Rafael,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, I'm still confused (my perpetual state :)).
> > > > > 
> > > > > No worries, doing my best to address that.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 02:16:17PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 11:16 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 06:01:26PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 12:28 AM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 01:00:36PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 1:37 AM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 04:33:52PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 10:42 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 12:58:28PM -0600, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/11/2022 11:41, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 05:33:55PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Firmware typically advertises that ACPI devices that represent PCIe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > devices can support D3 by a combination of the value returned by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _S0W as well as the HotPlugSupportInD3 _DSD [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `acpi_pci_bridge_d3` looks for this combination but also contains
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an assumption that if an ACPI device contains power resources the PCIe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > device it's associated with can support D3.  This was introduced
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from commit c6e331312ebf ("PCI/ACPI: Whitelist hotplug ports for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D3 if power managed by ACPI").
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some firmware configurations for "AMD Pink Sardine" do not support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wake from D3 in _S0W for the ACPI device representing the PCIe root
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > port used for tunneling. The PCIe device will still be opted into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > runtime PM in the kernel [2] because of the logic within
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `acpi_pci_bridge_d3`. This currently happens because the ACPI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > device contains power resources.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wait.  Is this as simple as just recognizing that:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   _PS0 means the OS has a knob to put the device in D0, but it doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   mean the device can wake itself from a low-power state.  The OS has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   to use _S0W to learn the device's ability to wake itself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It is.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Now I'm confused again about what "HotPlugSupportInD3" means.  The MS
> > > > > > > > > > > > web page [1] says it identifies Root Ports capable of handling hot
> > > > > > > > > > > > plug events while in D3.  That sounds kind of related to _S0W: If _S0W
> > > > > > > > > > > > says "I can wake myself from D3hot and D3cold", how is that different
> > > > > > > > > > > > from "I can handle hotplug events in D3"?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > For native PME/hot-plug signaling there is no difference.  This is the
> > > > > > > > > > > same interrupt by the spec after all IIRC.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > For GPE-based signaling, though, there is a difference, because GPEs
> > > > > > > > > > > can only be used directly for wake signaling (this is related to
> > > > > > > > > > > _PRW).  In particular, the only provision in the ACPI spec for device
> > > > > > > > > > > hot-add are the Bus Check and Device Check notification values (0 and
> > > > > > > > > > > 1) which require AML to run and evaluate Notify() on specific AML
> > > > > > > > > > > objects.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hence, there is no spec-defined way to tell the OS that "something can
> > > > > > > > > > > be hot-added under this device while in D3 and you will get notified
> > > > > > > > > > > about that".
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So I guess acpi_pci_bridge_d3() looks for:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >   - "wake signaling while in D3" (_S0W) and
> > > > > > > > > >   - "notification of hotplug while in D3" ("HotPlugSupportInD3")
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > For Root Ports with both those abilities (or bridges below such Root
> > > > > > > > > > Ports), we allow D3, and this patch doesn't change that.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What this patch *does* change is that all bridges with _PS0 or _PR0
> > > > > > > > > > previously could use D3, but now will only be able to use D3 if they
> > > > > > > > > > are also (or are below) a Root Port that can signal wakeup
> > > > > > > > > > (wakeup.flags.valid) and can wakeup from D3hot or D3cold (_S0W).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And this fixes the Pink Sardine because it has Root Ports that do
> > > > > > > > > > Thunderbolt tunneling, and they have _PS0 or _PR0 but their _S0W says
> > > > > > > > > > they cannot wake from D3.  Previously we put those in D3, but they
> > > > > > > > > > couldn't wake up.  Now we won't put them in D3.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I guess there's a possibility that this could break or cause higher
> > > > > > > > > > power consumption on systems that were fixed by c6e331312ebf
> > > > > > > > > > ("PCI/ACPI: Whitelist hotplug ports for D3 if power managed by ACPI").
> > > > > > > > > > I don't know enough about that scenario.  Maybe Lukas will chime in.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Well, it is possible that some of these systems will be affected.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > One of such cases is when the port in question has _S0W which says
> > > > > > > > > that wakeup from D3 is not supported.  In that case I think the kernel
> > > > > > > > > should honor the _S0W input, because there may be a good reason known
> > > > > > > > > to the platform integrator for it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The other case is when wakeup.flags.valid is unset for the port's ACPI
> > > > > > > > > companion which means that the port cannot signal wakeup through
> > > > > > > > > ACPI-related means at all and this may be problematic, especially in
> > > > > > > > > the system-wide suspend case in which the wakeup capability is not too
> > > > > > > > > relevant unless there is a system wakeup device under the port.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't think that the adev->wakeup.flags.valid check has any bearing
> > > > > > > > > on the _S0W check - if there is _S0W and it says "no wakeup from D3",
> > > > > > > > > it should still be taken into account - so that check can be moved
> > > > > > > > > past the _S0W check.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So if _S0W says it can wake from D3, but wakeup.flags is not valid,
> > > > > > > > it's still OK to use D3?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, it isn't, as per the code today and I don't think that this
> > > > > > > particular part should be changed now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But the current upstream code checks acpi_pci_power_manageable(dev)
> > > > > > first, so if "dev" has _PR0 or _PS0, we'll use D3 even if _S0W says it
> > > > > > can wake from D3 and wakeup.flags is not valid.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes, the current code will return 'true' if _PR0 or _PS0 is present
> > > > > for dev regardless of anything else.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The proposed change is to make that conditional on whether or not _S0W
> > > > > for the root port says that wakeup from D3 is supported (or it is not
> > > > > present or unusable).
> > > > > 
> > > > > I see that I've missed one point now which is when the root port
> > > > > doesn't have an ACPI companion, in which case we should go straight
> > > > > for the "dev is power manageable" check.
> > > > 
> > > > Moreover, it is possible that the bridge passed to acpi_pci_bridge_d3() has its
> > > > own _S0W or a wakeup GPE if it is power-manageable via ACPI.  In those cases
> > > > it is not necessary to ask the Root Port's _S0W about wakeup from D3, so overall
> > > > I would go for the patch like the below (not really tested).
> > > > 
> > > > This works in the same way as the current code (unless I have missed anything)
> > > > except for the case when the "target" bridge is power-manageable via ACPI, but
> > > > it cannot signal wakeup via ACPI and has no _S0W.  In that case it will consult
> > > > the upstream Root Port's _S0W to check whether or not wakeup from D3 is
> > > > supported.
> > > > 
> > > > [Note that if dev_has_acpi_pm is 'true', it is kind of pointless to look for the
> > > > "HotPlugSupportInD3" property of the Root Port, because the function is going to
> > > > return 'true' regardless, but I'm not sure if adding an extra if () for handling
> > > > this particular case is worth the hassle.]
> > > 
> > > I think this has a lot of potential.  I haven't tried it, but I wonder
> > > if splitting out the Root Port-specific parts to a separate function
> > > would be helpful, if only to make it more obvious that there may be
> > > two different devices involved.
> > > 
> > > If there are two devices ("dev" is a bridge below a Root Port), I
> > > guess support in the Root Port is not necessarily required?  E.g.,
> > > could "dev" assert a wakeup GPE that's not routed through the Root
> > > Port?  If Root Port support *is* required, maybe it would read more
> > > clearly to test that first, before looking at the downstream device.
> > 
> > Sorry for the delay.
> > 
> > I don't really think that Root Port support is required for a bridge below
> > a Root Port if that bridge itself is power-manageable via ACPI.  Moreover,
> > I don't think that the _S0W of a Root Port has any bearing on devices below
> > it that have their own _S0W.
> > 
> > So what we really want appears to be to evaluate _S0W for the target bridge,
> > regardless of whether or not it is a Root Port, and return 'false' if that
> > produces D2 or a shallower power state.  Otherwise, we can do what we've
> > done so far.
> > 
> > The patch below implements, this - please let me know what you think.
> > 
> 
> And here's a v2 with somewhat less code duplication.

I'm wondering if you have any comments on this one?

> ---
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] PCI / ACPI: PM: Take _S0W of the target bridge into account in acpi_pci_bridge_d3(()
> 
> It is generally questionable to allow a PCI bridge to go into D3 if
> it has _S0W returning D2 or a shallower power state, so modify
> acpi_pci_bridge_d3(() to always take the return value of _S0W for the
> target bridge into accout.  That is, make it return 'false' if _S0W
> returns D2 or a shallower power state for the target bridge regardless
> of its ancestor PCIe Root Port properties.  Of course, this also causes
> 'false' to be returned if the PCIe Root Port itself is the target and
> its _S0W returns D2 or a shallower power state.
> 
> However, still allow bridges without _S0W that are power-manageable via
> ACPI to enter D3 to retain the current code behavior in that case.
> 
> Reported-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/device_pm.c |   16 ++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c   |   34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>  include/acpi/acpi_bus.h  |    1 +
>  3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c
> @@ -977,22 +977,37 @@ bool acpi_pci_bridge_d3(struct pci_dev *
>  {
>  	struct pci_dev *rpdev;
>  	struct acpi_device *adev;
> -	acpi_status status;
> -	unsigned long long state;
>  	const union acpi_object *obj;
>  
>  	if (acpi_pci_disabled || !dev->is_hotplug_bridge)
>  		return false;
>  
> -	/* Assume D3 support if the bridge is power-manageable by ACPI. */
> -	if (acpi_pci_power_manageable(dev))
> -		return true;
> +	adev = ACPI_COMPANION(&dev->dev);
> +	if (adev) {
> +		/*
> +		 * If the bridge has _S0W, whether or not it can go into D3
> +		 * depends on what is returned by that object.  In particular,
> +		 * if the power state returned by _S0W is D2 or shallower,
> +		 * entering D3 should not be allowed.
> +		 */
> +		if (acpi_dev_no_wakeup_from_d3(adev))
> +			return false;
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Otherwise, assume that the bridge can enter D3 so long as it
> +		 * is power-manageable via ACPI.
> +		 */
> +		if (acpi_device_power_manageable(adev))
> +			return true;
> +	}
>  
>  	rpdev = pcie_find_root_port(dev);
>  	if (!rpdev)
>  		return false;
>  
> -	adev = ACPI_COMPANION(&rpdev->dev);
> +	if (rpdev != dev)
> +		adev = ACPI_COMPANION(&rpdev->dev);
> +
>  	if (!adev)
>  		return false;
>  
> @@ -1005,11 +1020,10 @@ bool acpi_pci_bridge_d3(struct pci_dev *
>  		return false;
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * If the Root Port cannot wake itself from D3hot or D3cold, we
> -	 * can't use D3.
> +	 * In the bridge-below-a-Root-Port case, evaluate _S0W for the Root Port
> +	 * to verify whether or not it can signal wakeup from D3.
>  	 */
> -	status = acpi_evaluate_integer(adev->handle, "_S0W", NULL, &state);
> -	if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status) && state < ACPI_STATE_D3_HOT)
> +	if (rpdev != dev && acpi_dev_no_wakeup_from_d3(adev))
>  		return false;
>  
>  	/*
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/device_pm.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/device_pm.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/device_pm.c
> @@ -484,6 +484,22 @@ void acpi_dev_power_up_children_with_adr
>  	acpi_dev_for_each_child(adev, acpi_power_up_if_adr_present, NULL);
>  }
>  
> +/**
> + * acpi_dev_no_wakeup_from_d3 - Check if wakeup signaling from D3 is supported
> + * @adev: ACPI companion of the target device.
> + *
> + * Evaluate _S0W for @adev and return 'true' if it is successful and the power
> + * state returned by it is D2 or shallower.
> + */
> +bool acpi_dev_no_wakeup_from_d3(struct acpi_device *adev)
> +{
> +	unsigned long long state;
> +	acpi_status status;
> +
> +	status = acpi_evaluate_integer(adev->handle, "_S0W", NULL, &state);
> +	return ACPI_SUCCESS(status) && state < ACPI_STATE_D3_HOT;
> +}
> +
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PM
>  static DEFINE_MUTEX(acpi_pm_notifier_lock);
>  static DEFINE_MUTEX(acpi_pm_notifier_install_lock);
> Index: linux-pm/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> +++ linux-pm/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> @@ -533,6 +533,7 @@ int acpi_bus_update_power(acpi_handle ha
>  int acpi_device_update_power(struct acpi_device *device, int *state_p);
>  bool acpi_bus_power_manageable(acpi_handle handle);
>  void acpi_dev_power_up_children_with_adr(struct acpi_device *adev);
> +bool acpi_dev_no_wakeup_from_d3(struct acpi_device *adev);
>  int acpi_device_power_add_dependent(struct acpi_device *adev,
>  				    struct device *dev);
>  void acpi_device_power_remove_dependent(struct acpi_device *adev,
> 
> 
> 
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists