Date:   Wed, 12 Jul 2023 11:09:15 -0500
From:   "Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@....com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Iain Lane <iain@...ngesquash.org.uk>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] PCI: Don't put non-power manageable PCIe root
 ports into D3

On 7/12/2023 07:13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 12:54 AM Mario Limonciello
> <mario.limonciello@....com> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/11/23 17:14, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> [+cc Andy, Intel MID stuff]
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 07:53:25PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>>>> Since commit 9d26d3a8f1b0 ("PCI: Put PCIe ports into D3 during suspend")
>>>> PCIe ports from modern machines (>2015) are allowed to be put into D3 by
>>>> storing a flag in the `struct pci_dev` structure.
>>>
>>> It looks like >= 2015 (not >2015).  I think "a flag" refers to
>>> "bridge_d3".
>>
>> Yeah.
>>
>>>
>>>> pci_power_manageable() uses this flag to indicate a PCIe port can enter D3.
>>>> pci_pm_suspend_noirq() uses the return from pci_power_manageable() to
>>>> decide whether to try to put a device into its target state for a sleep
>>>> cycle via pci_prepare_to_sleep().
>>>>
>>>> For devices that support D3, the target state is selected by this policy:
>>>> 1. If platform_pci_power_manageable():
>>>>      Use platform_pci_choose_state()
>>>> 2. If the device is armed for wakeup:
>>>>      Select the deepest D-state that supports a PME.
>>>> 3. Else:
>>>>      Use D3hot.
>>>>
>>>> Devices are considered power manageable by the platform when they have
>>>> one or more objects described in the table in section 7.3 of the ACPI 6.4
>>>> specification.
>>>
>>> No point in citing an old version, so please cite ACPI r6.5, sec 7.3.
>>>
>>> The spec claims we only need one object from the table for a device to
>>> be "power-managed", but in reality, it looks like the only things that
>>> actually *control* power are _PRx (the _ON/_OFF methods of Power
>>> Resources) and _PSx (ironically only mentioned parenthically).
>>>
>>
>> Your point has me actually wondering if I've got this entirely wrong.
>>
>> Should we perhaps be looking specifically for the presence of _SxW to
>> decide if a given PCIe port can go below D0?
> 
> There are two things, _SxW and _SxD, and they shouldn't be confused.
> 
> _SxW tells you what the deepest power state from which wakeup can be
> signaled by the device (in the given Sx state of the system) is.
> 
> _SxD tells you what the deepest power state supported by the device
> (in the given Sx state of the system) is.
> 
> And note that _SxW is applicable to the device itself, not the
> subordinate devices, so I'm not sure how meaningful it is for ports.
> 
> pci_target_state() uses both _SxW and _SxD to determine the deepest
> state the device can go into and so long as it is used properly, it
> shouldn't return a power state that is too deep, so I'm not really
> sure why you want this special "should the bridge be allowed to go
> into D3hot/cold" routine to double check this.

Because pci_target_state only looks at _SxW and _SxD "if" the PCI device 
is power manageable by ACPI.  That's why this change is injecting that 
extra check in.

> 
>> IE very similar to what 8133844a8f24 did but for ports that are not
>> hotplug bridges.
>>
>>> This matches up well with acpi_pci_power_manageable(), which returns
>>> true if a device has either _PR0 or _PS0.
>>>
>>>     Per ACPI r6.5, sec 7.3, ACPI control of device power states uses
>>>     Power Resources (i.e., the _ON/_OFF methods of _PRx) or _PSx
>>>     methods.  Hence acpi_pci_power_manageable() checks for the presence
>>>     of _PR0 or _PS0.
>>>
>>> Tangent unrelated to *this* patch: I don't know how to think about the
>>> pci_use_mid_pm() in platform_pci_power_manageable() because I haven't
>>> seen a MID spec.  pci_use_mid_pm() isn't dependent on "dev", so we
>>> claim *all* PCI devices, even external ones, are power manageable by
>>> the platform, which doesn't seem right.
>>>
>>>> At suspend Linux puts PCIe root ports that are not power manageable by
>>>> the platform into D3hot. Windows only puts PCIe root ports into D3 when
>>>> they are power manageable by the platform.
>>>>
>>>> The policy selected for Linux to put non-power manageable PCIe root ports
>>>> into D3hot at system suspend doesn't match anything in the PCIe or ACPI
>>>> specs.
>>>>
>>>> Linux shouldn't assume PCIe root ports support D3 just because
>>>> they're on a machine newer than 2015, the ports should also be considered
>>>> power manageable by the platform.
>>>>
>>>> Add an extra check for PCIe root ports to ensure D3 isn't selected for
>>>> them if they are not power-manageable through platform firmware.
>>>> This will avoid pci_pm_suspend_noirq() changing the power state
>>>> via pci_prepare_to_sleep().
>>>>
>>>> The check is focused on PCIe root ports because they are part of
>>>> the platform.  Other PCIe bridges may be connected externally and thus
>>>> cannot impose platform specific limitations.
>>>>
>>>> Link: https://uefi.org/htmlspecs/ACPI_Spec_6_4_html/07_Power_and_Performance_Mgmt/device-power-management-objects.html [1]
>>
>> At least for myself when I respin this, here is the 6.5 link.
>> https://uefi.org/specs/ACPI/6.5/07_Power_and_Performance_Mgmt.html#device-power-management-objects
>>
>>>> Fixes: 9d26d3a8f1b0 ("PCI: Put PCIe ports into D3 during suspend")
>>>> Reported-by: Iain Lane <iain@...ngesquash.org.uk>
>>>> Closes: https://forums.lenovo.com/t5/Ubuntu/Z13-can-t-resume-from-suspend-with-external-USB-keyboard/m-p/5217121
>>>> Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
>>>> ---
>>>> v6->v7:
>>>> * revert back to v5 code, rewrite commit message to specific examples
>>>>     and be more generic
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/pci/pci.c | 8 ++++++++
>>>>    1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
>>>> index f916fd76eba79..4be8c6f8f4ebe 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
>>>> @@ -3041,6 +3041,14 @@ bool pci_bridge_d3_possible(struct pci_dev *bridge)
>>>>       if (dmi_check_system(bridge_d3_blacklist))
>>>>               return false;
>>>>
>>>> +    /*
>>>> +     * It's not safe to put root ports that aren't power manageable
>>>> +     * by the platform into D3.
>>>
>>> Does this refer specifically to D3cold?
>>>
>>
>> No, it's intentionally not saying D3hot or D3cold because it's stored to
>> "bridge_d3" which is used for both D3hot and D3cold.
>>
>>> I assume that if we were talking about D3hot, we wouldn't need to
>>> check for ACPI support because D3hot behavior should be fully covered
>>> by the PCIe spec.
>>
>> Right; the PCIe spec indicates that D3hot should be supported by all
>> devices and has rules about when you can go into D3hot like not allowing
>> it unless child devices are already in D3.
>>
>> Naïvely you would think that means pci_bridge_d3_possible() shouldn't
>> have any of these checks, but they've all obviously all been grown for a
>> reason.
>>
>> The value from pci_bridge_d3_possible() is used both "at suspend" and
>> "runtime", but what we're really talking with this issue is is the
>> behavior "at suspend".
> 
> Which is suspend-to-idle AFAICS, so from the ACPI perspective it is
> all S0 anyway.
> 
>>>
>>> Let's be specific about D3hot vs D3cold whenever possible.
>>>
>>>> +    if (pci_pcie_type(bridge) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT &&
>>>> +        !platform_pci_power_manageable(bridge))
>>>> +            return false;
>>>
>>> If ACPI says a device is not power-manageable, i.e., ACPI doesn't know
>>> how to put it in D0, it makes sense to return "false" here so we don't
>>> try to put it in D3cold.
>>>
>>> But I don't understand the ROOT_PORT check.  We may have a Switch
>>> described via ACPI, and the ROOT_PORT check means we can return "true"
>>> (it's OK to use D3cold) even if the Switch Port is not power-manageable
>>> via ACPI.
>>
>> This feels a lot more of a potential to cause regressions.
>>
>> Something we could do is include the value for bridge->untrusted in the
>> decision, but I'm not convinced that's correct.
>>
>> Another option can be to merge a series of changes like this:
>>
>> 1) My v5 patch that adds the quirks for the two known broken machines
>> 2) Patch 1/2 from v7
>> 3) Patch 2/2 from v7
>> 4) Another patch to drop the root port check here
>>
>> #1 could go to 6.5-rcX as it's riskless.  #2-4 could go to linux-next
>> and if they work out not to cause any problems we could revert #1.
>>
>> If they cause problems we come back to the drawing table to find the
>> right balance.
> 
> Generally speaking, pci_bridge_d3_possible() is there to prevent
> bridges (and PCIe ports in particular) from being put into D3hot/cold
> if there are reasons to believe that it may not work.
> acpi_pci_bridge_d3() is part of that.
> 
> Even if it returns 'true', the _SxD/_SxW check should still be applied
> via pci_target_state() to determine whether or not the firmware allows
> this particular bridge to go into D3hot/cold.  So arguably, the _SxW
> check in acpi_pci_bridge_d3() should not be necessary and if it makes
> any functional difference, there is a bug somewhere else.

But only if it was power manageable would the _SxD/_SxW check be 
applied.  This issue is around the branch of pci_target_state() where
it's not power manageable and so it uses PME or it falls back to D3hot.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists