linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] PCI: Don't put non-power manageable PCIe root ports into D3

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: <20230802052601.GM14638@black.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Aug 2023 08:26:01 +0300
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        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>,
        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

Hi Mario,

On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 10:17:11PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> > Consequently, platform_pci_bridge_d3() will return false and the only
> > thing that may allow the port to go into D0 is the dmi_get_bios_year()
> > check at the end of pci_bridge_d3_possible().
> > 
> > However, that was added, because there are Intel platforms on which
> > Root Ports need to be programmed into D3hot on suspend (which allows
> > the whole platform to reduce power significantly) and there are no
> > ACPI device power management objects associated with them (Mika should
> > know the gory details related to this).  It looks like under Windows
> > the additional power reduction would not be possible on those systems,
> > but that would be a problem, wouldn't it?
> > 
> 
> I've been thinking on this today, and I at least have a hypothesis about
> this behavior.  Perhaps Windows is actually utilizing enabled PEP
> constraints to enforce what state device should be put into over Modern
> Standby cycles in the absence of ACPI objects.
> 
> In the case of one of my problematic system the PEP constraints for the root
> port are:
> 
> Package (0x04)
> {
> 	0x00,
> 	"\\_SB.PCI0.GP17",
> 	0x00,
> 	0x00
> },
> 
> That first 0x00 means the constraint isn't actually enabled for the root
> port.
> 
> Mika,
> 
> Could you get an acpidump from one of these problematic Intel systems so we
> can check the PEP constraints to see if this theory works? Or maybe you have
> some other ideas why this is different?

The patch adding this was merged in 2016 and unfortunately I don't have
any of the ACPI dumps from them available anymore (and do not recall the
details either). I think these were Apollo Lake-P based systems with the
initial runtime D3cold and S0ix support at the time.