| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAA85sZvw1s-8CTCt5H_OjW-Q821LSzQOmJyyGYdKHfsDS2Z29A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 10:14:18 +0100
From: Ian Kumlien <ian.kumlien@...il.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>,
linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
"Saheed O. Bolarinwa" <refactormyself@...il.com>,
Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@...il.com>,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] PCI/ASPM: Use the path max in L1 ASPM latency check
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 6:44 AM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> [+cc Jesse, Tony, David, Jakub, Heiner, lists in case there's an ASPM
> issue with I211 or Realtek NICs. Beginning of thread:
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201024205548.1837770-1-ian.kumlien@gmail.com
>
> Short story: Ian has:
>
> Root Port --- Switch --- I211 NIC
> \-- multifunction Realtek NIC, etc
>
> and the I211 performance is poor with ASPM L1 enabled on both links
> in the path to it. The patch here disables ASPM on the upstream link
> and fixes the performance, but AFAICT the devices in that path give us
> no reason to disable L1. If I understand the spec correctly, the
> Realtek device should not be relevant to the I211 path.]
>
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 10:39:53PM +0100, Ian Kumlien wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 12:47 AM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 10:55:46PM +0200, Ian Kumlien wrote:
> > > > Make pcie_aspm_check_latency comply with the PCIe spec, specifically:
> > > > "5.4.1.2.2. Exit from the L1 State"
> > > >
> > > > Which makes it clear that each switch is required to initiate a
> > > > transition within 1μs from receiving it, accumulating this latency and
> > > > then we have to wait for the slowest link along the path before
> > > > entering L0 state from L1.
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > > On my specific system:
> > > > 03:00.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation I211 Gigabit Network Connection (rev 03)
> > > > 04:00.0 Unassigned class [ff00]: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. Device 816e (rev 1a)
> > > >
> > > > Exit latency Acceptable latency
> > > > Tree: L1 L0s L1 L0s
> > > > ---------- ------- ----- ------- ------
> > > > 00:01.2 <32 us -
> > > > | 01:00.0 <32 us -
> > > > |- 02:03.0 <32 us -
> > > > | \03:00.0 <16 us <2us <64 us <512ns
> > > > |
> > > > \- 02:04.0 <32 us -
> > > > \04:00.0 <64 us unlimited <64 us <512ns
> > > >
> > > > 04:00.0's latency is the same as the maximum it allows so as we walk the path
> > > > the first switchs startup latency will pass the acceptable latency limit
> > > > for the link, and as a side-effect it fixes my issues with 03:00.0.
> > > >
> > > > Without this patch, 03:00.0 misbehaves and only gives me ~40 mbit/s over
> > > > links with 6 or more hops. With this patch I'm back to a maximum of ~933
> > > > mbit/s.
> > >
> > > There are two paths here that share a Link:
> > >
> > > 00:01.2 --- 01:00.0 -- 02:03.0 --- 03:00.0 I211 NIC
> > > 00:01.2 --- 01:00.0 -- 02:04.0 --- 04:00.x multifunction Realtek
> > >
> > > 1) The path to the I211 NIC includes four Ports and two Links (the
> > > connection between 01:00.0 and 02:03.0 is internal Switch routing,
> > > not a Link).
> >
> > > The Ports advertise L1 exit latencies of <32us, <32us, <32us,
> > > <16us. If both Links are in L1 and 03:00.0 initiates L1 exit at T,
> > > 01:00.0 initiates L1 exit at T + 1. A TLP from 03:00.0 may see up
> > > to 1 + 32 = 33us of L1 exit latency.
> > >
> > > The NIC can tolerate up to 64us of L1 exit latency, so it is safe
> > > to enable L1 for both Links.
> > >
> > > 2) The path to the Realtek device is similar except that the Realtek
> > > L1 exit latency is <64us. If both Links are in L1 and 04:00.x
> > > initiates L1 exit at T, 01:00.0 again initiates L1 exit at T + 1,
> > > but a TLP from 04:00.x may see up to 1 + 64 = 65us of L1 exit
> > > latency.
> > >
> > > The Realtek device can only tolerate 64us of latency, so it is not
> > > safe to enable L1 for both Links. It should be safe to enable L1
> > > on the shared link because the exit latency for that link would be
> > > <32us.
> >
> > 04:00.0:
> > DevCap: MaxPayload 128 bytes, PhantFunc 0, Latency L0s <512ns, L1 <64us
> > LnkCap: Port #0, Speed 5GT/s, Width x1, ASPM L0s L1, Exit Latency L0s
> > unlimited, L1 <64us
> >
> > So maximum latency for the entire link has to be <64 us
> > For the device to leave L1 ASPM takes <64us
> >
> > So the device itself is the slowest entry along the link, which
> > means that nothing else along that path can have ASPM enabled
>
> Yes. That's what I said above: "it is not safe to enable L1 for both
> Links." Unless I'm missing something, we agree on that.
>
> I also said that it should be safe to enable L1 on the shared Link
> (from 00:01.2 to 01:00.0) because if the downstream Link is always in
> L0, the exit latency of the shared Link should be <32us, and 04:00.x
> can tolerate 64us.
Exit latency of shared link would be max of link, ie 64 + L1-hops, not 32
> > > > The original code path did:
> > > > 04:00:0-02:04.0 max latency 64 -> ok
> > > > 02:04.0-01:00.0 max latency 32 +1 -> ok
> > > > 01:00.0-00:01.2 max latency 32 +2 -> ok
> > > >
> > > > And thus didn't see any L1 ASPM latency issues.
> > > >
> > > > The new code does:
> > > > 04:00:0-02:04.0 max latency 64 -> ok
> > > > 02:04.0-01:00.0 max latency 64 +1 -> latency exceeded
> > > > 01:00.0-00:01.2 max latency 64 +2 -> latency exceeded
> > >
> > > [Nit: I don't think we should add 1 for the 02:04.0 -- 01:00.0 piece
> > > because that's internal Switch routing, not a Link. But even without
> > > that extra microsecond, this path does exceed the acceptable latency
> > > since 1 + 64 = 65us, and 04:00.0 can only tolerate 64us.]
> >
> > It does report L1 ASPM on both ends, so the links will be counted as
> > such in the code.
>
> This is a bit of a tangent and we shouldn't get too wrapped up in it.
> This is a confusing aspect of PCIe. We're talking about this path:
>
> 00:01.2 --- [01:00.0 -- 02:04.0] --- 04:00.x multifunction Realtek
>
> This path only contains two Links. The first one is
> 00:01.2 --- 01:00.0, and the second one is 02:04.0 --- 04:00.x.
>
> 01:00.0 is a Switch Upstream Port and 02:04.0 is a Switch Downstream
> Port. The connection between them is not a Link; it is some internal
> wiring of the Switch that is completely opaque to software.
>
> The ASPM information and knobs in 01:00.0 apply to the Link on its
> upstream side, and the ASPM info and knobs in 02:04.0 apply to the
> Link on its downstream side.
>
> The example in sec 5.4.1.2.2 contains three Links. The L1 exit latency
> for the Link is the max of the exit latencies at each end:
>
> Link 1: max(32, 8) = 32us
> Link 2: max(8, 32) = 32us
> Link 3: max(32, 8) = 32us
>
> The total delay for a TLP starting at the downstream end of Link 3
> is 32 + 2 = 32us.
>
> In the path to your 04:00.x Realtek device:
>
> Link 1 (from 00:01.2 to 01:00.0): max(32, 32) = 32us
> Link 2 (from 02:04.0 to 04:00.x): max(32, 64) = 64us
>
> If L1 were enabled on both Links, the exit latency would be 64 + 1 =
> 65us.
So one line to be removed from the changelog, i assume... And yes, the
code handles that - first disable is 01:00.0 <-> 00:01.2
> > I also assume that it can power down individual ports... and enter
> > rest state if no links are up.
>
> I don't think this is quite true -- a Link can't enter L1 unless the
> Ports on both ends have L1 enabled, so I don't think it makes sense to
> talk about an individual Port being in L1.
>
> > > > It correctly identifies the issue.
> > > >
> > > > For reference, pcie information:
> > > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=209725
> > >
> > > The "lspci without my patches" [1] shows L1 enabled for the shared
> > > Link from 00:01.2 --- 01:00.0 and for the Link to 03:00.0 (I211), but
> > > not for the Link to 04:00.x (Realtek).
> > >
> > > Per my analysis above, that looks like it *should* be a safe
> > > configuration. 03:00.0 can tolerate 64us, actual is <33us. 04:00.0
> > > can tolerate 64us, actual should be <32us since only the shared Link
> > > is in L1.
> >
> > See above.
>
> As I said above, if we enabled L1 only on the shared Link from 00:01.2
> to 01:00.0, the exit latency should be acceptable. In that case, a
> TLP from 04:00.x would see only 32us of latency:
>
> Link 1 (from 00:01.2 to 01:00.0): max(32, 32) = 32us
>
> and 04:00.x can tolerate 64us.
But, again, you're completely ignoring the full link, ie 04:00.x would
also have to power on.
> > > However, the commit log at [2] shows L1 *enabled* for both the shared
> > > Link from 00:01.2 --- 01:00.0 and the 02:04.0 --- 04:00.x Link, and
> > > that would definitely be a problem.
> > >
> > > Can you explain the differences between [1] and [2]?
> >
> > I don't understand which sections you're referring to.
>
> [1] is the "lspci without my patches" attachment of bugzilla #209725,
> which is supposed to show the problem this patch solves. We're
> talking about the path to 04:00.x, and [1] show this:
>
> 01:00.2 L1+
> 01:00.0 L1+
> 02:04.0 L1-
> 04:00.0 L1-
>
> AFAICT, that should be a legal configuration as far as 04:00.0 is
> concerned, so it's not a reason for this patch.
Actually, no, maximum path latency 64us
04:00.0 wakeup latency == 64us
Again, as stated, it can't be behind any sleeping L1 links
> [2] is a previous posting of this same patch, and its commit log
> includes information about the same path to 04:00.x, but the "LnkCtl
> Before" column shows:
>
> 01:00.2 L1+
> 01:00.0 L1+
> 02:04.0 L1+
> 04:00.0 L1+
>
> I don't know why [1] shows L1 disabled on the downstream Link, while
> [2] shows L1 *enabled* on the same Link.
>From the data they look switched.
> > > > Kai-Heng Feng has a machine that will not boot with ASPM without
> > > > this patch, information is documented here:
> > > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=209671
> > >
> > > I started working through this info, too, but there's not enough
> > > information to tell what difference this patch makes. The attachments
> > > compare:
> > >
> > > 1) CONFIG_PCIEASPM_DEFAULT=y without the patch [3] and
> > > 2) CONFIG_PCIEASPM_POWERSAVE=y *with* the patch [4]
> > >
> > > Obviously CONFIG_PCIEASPM_POWERSAVE=y will configure things
> > > differently than CONFIG_PCIEASPM_DEFAULT=y, so we can't tell what
> > > changes are due to the config change and what are due to the patch.
> > >
> > > The lspci *with* the patch ([4]) shows L0s and L1 enabled at almost
> > > every possible place. Here are the Links, how they're configured, and
> > > my analysis of the exit latencies vs acceptable latencies:
> > >
> > > 00:01.1 --- 01:00.0 L1+ ( L1 <64us vs unl)
> > > 00:01.2 --- 02:00.0 L1+ ( L1 <64us vs 64us)
> > > 00:01.3 --- 03:00.0 L1+ ( L1 <64us vs 64us)
> > > 00:01.4 --- 04:00.0 L1+ ( L1 <64us vs unl)
> > > 00:08.1 --- 05:00.x L0s+ L1+ (L0s <64ns vs 4us, L1 <1us vs unl)
> > > 00:08.2 --- 06:00.0 L0s+ L1+ (L0s <64ns vs 4us, L1 <1us vs unl)
> > >
> > > So I can't tell what change prevents the freeze. I would expect the
> > > patch would cause us to *disable* L0s or L1 somewhere.
> > >
> > > The only place [4] shows ASPM disabled is for 05:00.1. The spec says
> > > we should program the same value in all functions of a multi-function
> > > device. This is a non-ARI device, so "only capabilities enabled in
> > > all functions are enabled for the component as a whole." That would
> > > mean that L0s and L1 are effectively disabled for 05:00.x even though
> > > 05:00.0 claims they're enabled. But the latencies say ASPM L0s and L1
> > > should be safe to be enabled. This looks like another bug that's
> > > probably unrelated.
> >
> > I don't think it's unrelated, i suspect it's how PCIe works with
> > multiple links... a device can cause some kind of head of queue
> > stalling - i don't know how but it really looks like it.
>
> The text in quotes above is straight out of the spec (PCIe r5.0, sec
> 7.5.3.7). Either the device works that way or it's not compliant.
>
> The OS configures ASPM based on the requirements and capabilities
> advertised by the device. If a device has any head of queue stalling
> or similar issues, those must be comprehended in the numbers
> advertised by the device. It's not up to the OS to speculate about
> issues like that.
>
> > > The patch might be correct; I haven't actually analyzed the code. But
> > > the commit log doesn't make sense to me yet.
> >
> > I personally don't think that all this PCI information is required,
> > the linux kernel is currently doing it wrong according to the spec.
>
> We're trying to establish exactly *what* Linux is doing wrong. So far
> we don't have a good explanation of that.
Yes we do, linux counts hops + max for "link" while what should be done is
counting hops + max for path
> Based on [1], in the path to 03:00.0, both Links have L1 enabled, with
> an exit latency of <33us, and 03:00.0 can tolerate 64us. That should
> work fine.
>
> Also based on [1], in the path to 04:00.x, the upstream Link has L1
> enabled and the downstream Link has L1 disabled, for an exit latency
> of <32us, and 04:00.0 can tolerate 64us. That should also work fine.
Again, ignoring the exit latendy for 04:00.0
> (Alternately, disabling L1 on the upstream Link and enabling it on the
> downstream Link should have an exit latency of <64us and 04:00.0 can
> tolerate 64us, so that should work fine, too.)
Then nothing else can have L1 aspm enabled
> > Also, since it's clearly doing the wrong thing, I'm worried that
> > dists will take a kernel enable aspm and there will be alot of
> > bugreports of non-booting systems or other weird issues... And the
> > culprit was known all along.
>
> There's clearly a problem on your system, but I don't know yet whether
> Linux is doing something wrong, a device in your system is designed
> incorrectly, or a device is designed correctly but the instance in
> your system is defective.
According to the spec it is, there is a explanation of how to
calculate the exit latency
and when you implement that, which i did (before knowing the actual
spec) then it works...
> > It's been five months...
>
> I apologize for the delay. ASPM is a subtle area of PCIe, the Linux
> code is complicated, and we have a long history of issues with it. I
> want to fix the problem, but I want to make sure we do it in a way
> that matches the spec so the fix applies to all systems. I don't want
> a magic fix that fixes your system in a way I don't quite understand.
> Obviously *you* understand this, so hopefully it's just a matter of
> pounding it through my thick skull :)
I only understand what I've been forced to understand - and I do
leverage the existing code without
knowing what it does underneath, I only look at the links maximum
latency and make sure that I keep
the maximum latency along the path and not just link for link
once you realise that the max allowed latency is buffer dependent -
then this becomes obviously correct,
and then the pcie spec showed it as being correct as well... so...
> > > [1] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=293047
> > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20201007132808.647589-1-ian.kumlien@gmail.com/
> > > [3] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=292955
> > > [4] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=292957
> > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ian Kumlien <ian.kumlien@...il.com>
> > > > Tested-by: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
> > > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
> > > > index 253c30cc1967..c03ead0f1013 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
> > > > @@ -434,7 +434,7 @@ static void pcie_get_aspm_reg(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> > > >
> > > > static void pcie_aspm_check_latency(struct pci_dev *endpoint)
> > > > {
> > > > - u32 latency, l1_switch_latency = 0;
> > > > + u32 latency, l1_max_latency = 0, l1_switch_latency = 0;
> > > > struct aspm_latency *acceptable;
> > > > struct pcie_link_state *link;
> > > >
> > > > @@ -456,10 +456,14 @@ static void pcie_aspm_check_latency(struct pci_dev *endpoint)
> > > > if ((link->aspm_capable & ASPM_STATE_L0S_DW) &&
> > > > (link->latency_dw.l0s > acceptable->l0s))
> > > > link->aspm_capable &= ~ASPM_STATE_L0S_DW;
> > > > +
> > > > /*
> > > > * Check L1 latency.
> > > > - * Every switch on the path to root complex need 1
> > > > - * more microsecond for L1. Spec doesn't mention L0s.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * PCIe r5.0, sec 5.4.1.2.2 states:
> > > > + * A Switch is required to initiate an L1 exit transition on its
> > > > + * Upstream Port Link after no more than 1 μs from the beginning of an
> > > > + * L1 exit transition on any of its Downstream Port Links.
> > > > *
> > > > * The exit latencies for L1 substates are not advertised
> > > > * by a device. Since the spec also doesn't mention a way
> > > > @@ -469,11 +473,13 @@ static void pcie_aspm_check_latency(struct pci_dev *endpoint)
> > > > * L1 exit latencies advertised by a device include L1
> > > > * substate latencies (and hence do not do any check).
> > > > */
> > > > - latency = max_t(u32, link->latency_up.l1, link->latency_dw.l1);
> > > > - if ((link->aspm_capable & ASPM_STATE_L1) &&
> > > > - (latency + l1_switch_latency > acceptable->l1))
> > > > - link->aspm_capable &= ~ASPM_STATE_L1;
> > > > - l1_switch_latency += 1000;
> > > > + if (link->aspm_capable & ASPM_STATE_L1) {
> > > > + latency = max_t(u32, link->latency_up.l1, link->latency_dw.l1);
> > > > + l1_max_latency = max_t(u32, latency, l1_max_latency);
> > > > + if (l1_max_latency + l1_switch_latency > acceptable->l1)
> > > > + link->aspm_capable &= ~ASPM_STATE_L1;
> > > > + l1_switch_latency += 1000;
> > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > link = link->parent;
> > > > }
> > > > --
> > > > 2.29.1
> > > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists