| Message ID | 20231002070044.2299644-1-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v4] PCI/ASPM: Add back L1 PM Substate save and restore | expand |
On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 10:00:44AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > Commit a7152be79b62 ("Revert "PCI/ASPM: Save L1 PM Substates Capability > for suspend/resume"") reverted saving and restoring of ASPM L1 Substates > due to a regression that caused resume from suspend to fail on certain > systems. However, we never added this capability back and this is now > causing systems fail to enter low power CPU states, drawing more power > from the battery. AFAICT, the save (suspend) side is effectively the same in 4ff116d0d5fd ("PCI/ASPM: Save L1 PM Substates Capability for suspend/resume") (the change reverted by a7152be79b62) and in this patch. There are minor ordering differences with respect to DPC and AER, but I don't think they're relevant. > The original revert mentioned that we restore L1 PM substate configuration > even though ASPM L1 may already be enabled. This is due the fact that > the pci_restore_aspm_l1ss_state() was called before pci_restore_pcie_state(). > > Try to enable this functionality again following PCIe r6.0.1, sec 5.5.4 > more closely by: > > 1) Do not restore ASPM configuration in pci_restore_pcie_state() but > do that after PCIe capability is restored in pci_restore_aspm_state() > following PCIe r6.0, sec 5.5.4. > > 2) ASPM is first enabled on the upstream component and then downstream > (this is already forced by the parent-child ordering of Linux > Device Power Management framework). > > 3) Program ASPM L1 PM substate configuration before L1 enables. > > 4) Program ASPM L1 PM substate enables last after rest of the fields > in the capability are programmed. This patch changes the restore (resume) side. 4ff116d0d5fd restored L1SS state followed by LNKCTL. This patch instead restores LNKCTL (with ASPM *disabled*) before the L1SS state, and then restores the full LNKCTL (including ASPM config). > 5) Add denylist that skips restoring on the ASUS and TUXEDO systems > where these regressions happened, just in case. For the TUXEDO case > we only skip restore if the BIOS is involved in system suspend > (that's forcing "mem_sleep=deep" in the command line). This is to > avoid possible power regression when the default suspend to idle is > used, and at the same time make sure the devices continue working > after resume when the BIOS is involved. I looked through the v1, v2, and v3 threads, and I see testing failure reports from Thomas (TUXEDO) for v1 and "v1.5" [1]. v1.5 looks functionally identical to this v4 except it lacks the TUXEDO denylist entry. I don't see any actual success reports for either ASUS or TUXEDO. Do we have testing reports for these ASUS and TUXEDO systems showing that we need this denylist? I think this patch fixes a real problem with L1SS save/restore, and unless proven otherwise, I would assume that it fixes ASUS and TUXEDO as well. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20230630104154.GS14638@black.fi.intel.com/ > Reported-by: Koba Ko <koba.ko@canonical.com> > Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217321 IIUC, Koba's report is on a Dell Inspiron 15 3530. > Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216782 > Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216877 These are the original issues reported with 4ff116d0d5fd: 216782 is the ASUS UX305FA problem reported by Tasev, and 216877 is the TUXEDO problem reported by Thomas. So ... I think this patch definitely fixes a problem. 4ff116d0d5fd restored L1SS state before LNKCTL on the assumption that ASPM was disabled at the point, but I don't think we really know that. This patch explicitly disables ASPM before restoring L1SS, which seems safer. But we just punt on the ASUS and TUXEDO systems, when there's no reason we shouldn't be able to restore ASPM config there as well. And unless I missed them, we don't actually have testing reports from ASUS, TUXEDO, or Koba's Dell. I think there's still something we're missing. We restore the LTR config before restoring DEVCTL2 (including the LTR enable bit) and L1SS state. I don't think we know the state of ASPM and L1SS at that point, do we? Do you think there could be an issue there, too? > Cc: Tasev Nikola <tasev.stefanoska@skynet.be> > Cc: Mark Enriquez <enriquezmark36@gmail.com> > Cc: Thomas Witt <kernel@witt.link> > Cc: Werner Sembach <wse@tuxedocomputers.com> > Tested-by: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com> > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> > Reviewed-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> > --- > Hi all, > > Previous versions of the patch can be found: > > v3: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20230925074636.2893747-1-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com/ > v2: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20230911073352.3472918-1-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com/ > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20230627062442.54008-1-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com/ > > Changes from v3: > > - Use pcie_capability_set_word() instead. > > - Add tag from Ilpo. > > Changes from v2: > > - Added tested by tag from Kai-Heng Feng. > > - Dropped the two unneeded (u32 *) casts. > > - Dropped unnecessary comment. > > Changes from v1: > > - We move ASPM enables from pci_restore_pcie_state() into > pci_restore_aspm_state() to make sure they are clear when L1SS bits > are programmed (as per PCIe spec). > > - The denylist includes the TUXEDO system as well but only if suspend > is done via BIOS (e.g mem_sleep=deep is forced by user). This way > the PCIe devices should continue working after S3 resume, and at the > same time allow better power savings. If the default s2idle is used > then we restore L1SS to allow the CPU enter lower power states. This > is the best I was able to come up to make everyone happy. > > drivers/pci/pci.c | 18 ++++- > drivers/pci/pci.h | 4 ++ > drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c | 144 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 164 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c > index 59c01d68c6d5..7c72d40ec0ff 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c > @@ -1576,7 +1576,7 @@ static void pci_restore_pcie_state(struct pci_dev *dev) > { > int i = 0; > struct pci_cap_saved_state *save_state; > - u16 *cap; > + u16 *cap, val; > > save_state = pci_find_saved_cap(dev, PCI_CAP_ID_EXP); > if (!save_state) > @@ -1591,7 +1591,14 @@ static void pci_restore_pcie_state(struct pci_dev *dev) > > cap = (u16 *)&save_state->cap.data[0]; > pcie_capability_write_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL, cap[i++]); > - pcie_capability_write_word(dev, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, cap[i++]); > + /* > + * Restoring ASPM L1 substates has special requirements > + * according to the PCIe spec 6.0. So we restore here only the > + * LNKCTL register with the ASPM control field clear. ASPM will > + * be restored in pci_restore_aspm_state(). > + */ > + val = cap[i++] & ~PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_ASPMC; > + pcie_capability_write_word(dev, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, val); > pcie_capability_write_word(dev, PCI_EXP_SLTCTL, cap[i++]); > pcie_capability_write_word(dev, PCI_EXP_RTCTL, cap[i++]); > pcie_capability_write_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2, cap[i++]); > @@ -1702,6 +1709,7 @@ int pci_save_state(struct pci_dev *dev) > pci_save_ltr_state(dev); > pci_save_dpc_state(dev); > pci_save_aer_state(dev); > + pci_save_aspm_state(dev); > pci_save_ptm_state(dev); > return pci_save_vc_state(dev); > } > @@ -1815,6 +1823,7 @@ void pci_restore_state(struct pci_dev *dev) > pci_restore_rebar_state(dev); > pci_restore_dpc_state(dev); > pci_restore_ptm_state(dev); > + pci_restore_aspm_state(dev); > > pci_aer_clear_status(dev); > pci_restore_aer_state(dev); > @@ -3507,6 +3516,11 @@ void pci_allocate_cap_save_buffers(struct pci_dev *dev) > if (error) > pci_err(dev, "unable to allocate suspend buffer for LTR\n"); > > + error = pci_add_ext_cap_save_buffer(dev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_L1SS, > + 2 * sizeof(u32)); > + if (error) > + pci_err(dev, "unable to allocate suspend buffer for ASPM-L1SS\n"); > + > pci_allocate_vc_save_buffers(dev); > } > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.h b/drivers/pci/pci.h > index 39a8932dc340..11cec757a624 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/pci.h > +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.h > @@ -567,10 +567,14 @@ int pcie_retrain_link(struct pci_dev *pdev, bool use_lt); > void pcie_aspm_init_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev); > void pcie_aspm_exit_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev); > void pcie_aspm_powersave_config_link(struct pci_dev *pdev); > +void pci_save_aspm_state(struct pci_dev *pdev); > +void pci_restore_aspm_state(struct pci_dev *pdev); > #else > static inline void pcie_aspm_init_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev) { } > static inline void pcie_aspm_exit_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev) { } > static inline void pcie_aspm_powersave_config_link(struct pci_dev *pdev) { } > +static inline void pci_save_aspm_state(struct pci_dev *pdev) { } > +static inline void pci_restore_aspm_state(struct pci_dev *pdev) { } > #endif > > #ifdef CONFIG_PCIE_ECRC > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c > index 1bf630059264..dd0ba59c44b8 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c > @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ > * Copyright (C) Shaohua Li (shaohua.li@intel.com) > */ > > +#include <linux/dmi.h> > #include <linux/kernel.h> > #include <linux/math.h> > #include <linux/module.h> > @@ -17,6 +18,7 @@ > #include <linux/pm.h> > #include <linux/init.h> > #include <linux/slab.h> > +#include <linux/suspend.h> > #include <linux/jiffies.h> > #include <linux/delay.h> > #include "../pci.h" > @@ -712,6 +714,148 @@ static void pcie_config_aspm_l1ss(struct pcie_link_state *link, u32 state) > PCI_L1SS_CTL1_L1SS_MASK, val); > } > > +void pci_save_aspm_state(struct pci_dev *pdev) > +{ > + struct pci_cap_saved_state *save_state; > + u16 l1ss = pdev->l1ss; > + u32 *cap; > + > + /* > + * Save L1 substate configuration. The ASPM L0s/L1 configuration > + * is already saved in pci_save_pcie_state(). > + */ > + if (!l1ss) > + return; > + > + save_state = pci_find_saved_ext_cap(pdev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_L1SS); > + if (!save_state) > + return; > + > + cap = &save_state->cap.data[0]; > + pci_read_config_dword(pdev, l1ss + PCI_L1SS_CTL2, cap++); > + pci_read_config_dword(pdev, l1ss + PCI_L1SS_CTL1, cap++); > +} > + > +static int aspm_l1ss_suspend_via_firmware(const struct dmi_system_id *not_used) > +{ > + return pm_suspend_via_firmware(); > +} > + > +/* > + * Do not restore L1 substates for the below systems even if BIOS has enabled > + * it initially. This breaks resume from suspend otherwise on these. > + */ > +static const struct dmi_system_id aspm_l1ss_denylist[] = { > + { > + /* https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216782 */ > + .ident = "ASUS UX305FA", > + .matches = { > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC."), > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "UX305FA"), > + }, > + }, > + { > + /* > + * https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216877 > + * > + * This system needs to use suspend to mem instead of its > + * default (suspend to idle) to avoid draining the battery. > + * However, the BIOS gets confused if we try to restore the > + * L1SS registers so avoid doing that if the user forced > + * suspend to mem. The default suspend to idle on the other > + * hand needs restoring L1SS to allow the CPU to enter low > + * power states. This entry should handle both. > + */ > + .callback = aspm_l1ss_suspend_via_firmware, > + .ident = "TUXEDO InfinityBook S 14 v5", > + .matches = { > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "TUXEDO"), > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "L140CU"), > + }, > + }, > + { } > +}; > + > +static bool aspm_l1ss_skip_restore(const struct pci_dev *pdev) > +{ > + const struct dmi_system_id *dmi; > + > + dmi = dmi_first_match(aspm_l1ss_denylist); > + if (dmi) { > + /* If the callback returns zero we can restore L1SS */ > + if (dmi->callback && !dmi->callback(dmi)) > + return false; > + > + pci_dbg(pdev, "skipping restoring L1 substates on this system\n"); > + return true; > + } > + > + return false; > +} > + > +static void pcie_restore_aspm_l1ss(struct pci_dev *pdev) > +{ > + struct pci_cap_saved_state *save_state; > + u32 *cap, ctl1, ctl2, l1_2_enable; > + u16 l1ss = pdev->l1ss; > + > + if (!l1ss) > + return; > + > + if (aspm_l1ss_skip_restore(pdev)) > + return; > + > + save_state = pci_find_saved_ext_cap(pdev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_L1SS); > + if (!save_state) > + return; > + > + cap = &save_state->cap.data[0]; > + ctl2 = *cap++; > + ctl1 = *cap; > + > + /* > + * In addition, Common_Mode_Restore_Time and LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD > + * in PCI_L1SS_CTL1 must be programmed *before* setting the L1.2 > + * enable bits, even though they're all in PCI_L1SS_CTL1. > + */ > + l1_2_enable = ctl1 & PCI_L1SS_CTL1_L1_2_MASK; > + ctl1 &= ~PCI_L1SS_CTL1_L1_2_MASK; > + > + /* Write back without enables first (above we cleared them in ctl1) */ > + pci_write_config_dword(pdev, l1ss + PCI_L1SS_CTL1, ctl1); > + pci_write_config_dword(pdev, l1ss + PCI_L1SS_CTL2, ctl2); > + > + /* Then write back the enables */ > + if (l1_2_enable) > + pci_write_config_dword(pdev, l1ss + PCI_L1SS_CTL1, > + ctl1 | l1_2_enable); > +} > + > +void pci_restore_aspm_state(struct pci_dev *pdev) > +{ > + struct pci_cap_saved_state *save_state; > + u16 *cap, val; > + > + save_state = pci_find_saved_cap(pdev, PCI_CAP_ID_EXP); > + if (!save_state) > + return; > + > + cap = (u16 *)&save_state->cap.data[0]; > + /* Must match the ordering in pci_save/restore_pcie_state() */ > + val = cap[1] & PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_ASPMC; > + if (!val) > + return; > + > + /* > + * We restore L1 substate configuration first before enabling L1 > + * as the PCIe spec 6.0 sec 5.5.4 suggests. > + */ > + pcie_restore_aspm_l1ss(pdev); > + > + /* Re-enable L0s/L1 */ > + pcie_capability_set_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, val); > +} > + > static void pcie_config_aspm_dev(struct pci_dev *pdev, u32 val) > { > pcie_capability_clear_and_set_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, > -- > 2.40.1
On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 05:23:24PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 10:00:44AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > Commit a7152be79b62 ("Revert "PCI/ASPM: Save L1 PM Substates Capability > > for suspend/resume"") reverted saving and restoring of ASPM L1 Substates > > due to a regression that caused resume from suspend to fail on certain > > systems. However, we never added this capability back and this is now > > causing systems fail to enter low power CPU states, drawing more power > > from the battery. > > AFAICT, the save (suspend) side is effectively the same in > 4ff116d0d5fd ("PCI/ASPM: Save L1 PM Substates Capability for > suspend/resume") (the change reverted by a7152be79b62) and in this > patch. There are minor ordering differences with respect to DPC and > AER, but I don't think they're relevant. > > > The original revert mentioned that we restore L1 PM substate configuration > > even though ASPM L1 may already be enabled. This is due the fact that > > the pci_restore_aspm_l1ss_state() was called before pci_restore_pcie_state(). > > > > Try to enable this functionality again following PCIe r6.0.1, sec 5.5.4 > > more closely by: > > > > 1) Do not restore ASPM configuration in pci_restore_pcie_state() but > > do that after PCIe capability is restored in pci_restore_aspm_state() > > following PCIe r6.0, sec 5.5.4. > > > > 2) ASPM is first enabled on the upstream component and then downstream > > (this is already forced by the parent-child ordering of Linux > > Device Power Management framework). > > > > 3) Program ASPM L1 PM substate configuration before L1 enables. > > > > 4) Program ASPM L1 PM substate enables last after rest of the fields > > in the capability are programmed. > > This patch changes the restore (resume) side. 4ff116d0d5fd restored > L1SS state followed by LNKCTL. > > This patch instead restores LNKCTL (with ASPM *disabled*) before the > L1SS state, and then restores the full LNKCTL (including ASPM config). Right. > > 5) Add denylist that skips restoring on the ASUS and TUXEDO systems > > where these regressions happened, just in case. For the TUXEDO case > > we only skip restore if the BIOS is involved in system suspend > > (that's forcing "mem_sleep=deep" in the command line). This is to > > avoid possible power regression when the default suspend to idle is > > used, and at the same time make sure the devices continue working > > after resume when the BIOS is involved. > > I looked through the v1, v2, and v3 threads, and I see testing failure > reports from Thomas (TUXEDO) for v1 and "v1.5" [1]. v1.5 looks > functionally identical to this v4 except it lacks the TUXEDO denylist > entry. > > I don't see any actual success reports for either ASUS or TUXEDO. > > Do we have testing reports for these ASUS and TUXEDO systems showing > that we need this denylist? I think this patch fixes a real problem > with L1SS save/restore, and unless proven otherwise, I would assume > that it fixes ASUS and TUXEDO as well. The thing with TUXEDO is that on Thomas's system with mem_sleep=deep this patch (without denylist) breaks the resume as he describes here: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216877 However, on exact same TUXEDO system with the same firmwares Werner is not able to reproduce the issue with or without the patch. So I'm not sure what to do and that's why I added denylist that should take effect on Thomas' system when mem_sleep=deep is set but also work on the same system without it. And since we have the denylist, I decided to add the ASUS there to avoid accidentally breaking those too. Let me know if you have any preference what we should do with the TUXEDO one. I really don't know any better way to keep everyone happy. > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20230630104154.GS14638@black.fi.intel.com/ > > > Reported-by: Koba Ko <koba.ko@canonical.com> > > Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217321 > > IIUC, Koba's report is on a Dell Inspiron 15 3530. Right. > > Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216782 > > Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216877 > > These are the original issues reported with 4ff116d0d5fd: 216782 is > the ASUS UX305FA problem reported by Tasev, and 216877 is the TUXEDO > problem reported by Thomas. > > So ... I think this patch definitely fixes a problem. 4ff116d0d5fd > restored L1SS state before LNKCTL on the assumption that ASPM was > disabled at the point, but I don't think we really know that. > > This patch explicitly disables ASPM before restoring L1SS, which seems > safer. > > But we just punt on the ASUS and TUXEDO systems, when there's no > reason we shouldn't be able to restore ASPM config there as well. And > unless I missed them, we don't actually have testing reports from > ASUS, TUXEDO, or Koba's Dell. Just for the record, the Dell and probably others to the real issue is that if we don't restore these the CPU can't enter lower power C-states and that makes suspend to empty the battery much faster than user would expect. So some solution to this is definitely needed sooner rather than later. @Koba, can you provide your tested-by if this solves the issue on the Dell system? > I think there's still something we're missing. > > We restore the LTR config before restoring DEVCTL2 (including the LTR > enable bit) and L1SS state. I don't think we know the state of ASPM > and L1SS at that point, do we? Do you think there could be an issue > there, too? AFAICT LTR does not affect until it is explicitly enabled and I don't think many drivers actually program it (although we have some sort of API for it at least for Intel LPSS devices). If you have suggestions, I'm all open. If I understand you would like this to be done like: - Drop the denylist - Add back the suspend/restore of L1SS - Ask everyone in this thread to try it out I can do that no problem but I guess that for the TUXEDO one (Thomas') it probably is going to fail still.
On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 12:02:58PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 05:23:24PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > ... > The thing with TUXEDO is that on Thomas's system with mem_sleep=deep > this patch (without denylist) breaks the resume as he describes here: > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216877 > > However, on exact same TUXEDO system with the same firmwares Werner is > not able to reproduce the issue with or without the patch. So I'm not > sure what to do and that's why I added denylist that should take effect > on Thomas' system when mem_sleep=deep is set but also work on the same > system without it. > > And since we have the denylist, I decided to add the ASUS there to avoid > accidentally breaking those too. > ... > > I think there's still something we're missing. > > > > We restore the LTR config before restoring DEVCTL2 (including the LTR > > enable bit) and L1SS state. I don't think we know the state of ASPM > > and L1SS at that point, do we? Do you think there could be an issue > > there, too? > > AFAICT LTR does not affect until it is explicitly enabled and I don't > think many drivers actually program it (although we have some sort of > API for it at least for Intel LPSS devices). I couldn't find anything in the spec that suggests LTR should be an issue. I'm just grasping at straws here. There's obviously *something* we're doing wrong because ASPM worked before suspend, so we should be able to get it to work after resume. Could we learn anything by dumping config space of the problem devices before/after the suspend/resume and comparing them? If we could figure out a difference between Werner's working TUXEDO and Thomas' non-working TUXEDO, that might be a hint, too. > If you have suggestions, I'm all open. If I understand you would like > this to be done like: > > - Drop the denylist > - Add back the suspend/restore of L1SS > - Ask everyone in this thread to try it out > > I can do that no problem but I guess that for the TUXEDO one (Thomas') > it probably is going to fail still. Right, without the denylist, I expect Thomas' TUXEDO to fail, but I still hope we can figure out why. If we just keep it on the denylist, that system will suffer from more power consumption than necessary, but only after suspend/resume. A denylist seems like the absolute last resort. In this case we don't know about anything *wrong* with those platforms; all we know is that our resume path doesn't work. It's likely that it fails on other platforms we haven't heard about, too. Bjorn
On 05/10/2023 17:30, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 12:02:58PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 05:23:24PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >> ... > >> The thing with TUXEDO is that on Thomas's system with mem_sleep=deep >> this patch (without denylist) breaks the resume as he describes here: >> >> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216877 >> >> However, on exact same TUXEDO system with the same firmwares Werner is >> not able to reproduce the issue with or without the patch. So I'm not >> sure what to do and that's why I added denylist that should take effect >> on Thomas' system when mem_sleep=deep is set but also work on the same >> system without it. >> >> And since we have the denylist, I decided to add the ASUS there to avoid >> accidentally breaking those too. >> ... > >>> I think there's still something we're missing. >>> >>> We restore the LTR config before restoring DEVCTL2 (including the LTR >>> enable bit) and L1SS state. I don't think we know the state of ASPM >>> and L1SS at that point, do we? Do you think there could be an issue >>> there, too? >> >> AFAICT LTR does not affect until it is explicitly enabled and I don't >> think many drivers actually program it (although we have some sort of >> API for it at least for Intel LPSS devices). > > I couldn't find anything in the spec that suggests LTR should be an > issue. I'm just grasping at straws here. > > There's obviously *something* we're doing wrong because ASPM worked > before suspend, so we should be able to get it to work after resume. > > Could we learn anything by dumping config space of the problem devices > before/after the suspend/resume and comparing them? > > If we could figure out a difference between Werner's working TUXEDO > and Thomas' non-working TUXEDO, that might be a hint, too. > >> If you have suggestions, I'm all open. If I understand you would like >> this to be done like: >> >> - Drop the denylist >> - Add back the suspend/restore of L1SS >> - Ask everyone in this thread to try it out >> >> I can do that no problem but I guess that for the TUXEDO one (Thomas') >> it probably is going to fail still. > > Right, without the denylist, I expect Thomas' TUXEDO to fail, but I > still hope we can figure out why. If we just keep it on the denylist, > that system will suffer from more power consumption than necessary, > but only after suspend/resume. > > A denylist seems like the absolute last resort. In this case we don't > know about anything *wrong* with those platforms; all we know is that > our resume path doesn't work. It's likely that it fails on other > platforms we haven't heard about, too. > > Bjorn The best guess from Mika and David was a firmware issue, but I run the same Firmware revision as Werner. I even reflashed the Firmware, but that did not change anything: Quoting David Box: > I agree that we should pursue an exception for your system. This is > looking like a firmware bug. One thing we did notice in the turbostat > results is your IRTL (Interrupt Response Time Limit) values are bogus: > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC3_IRTL: 0x0000884e (valid, 79872 ns) > cpu6: MSR_PKGC6_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > cpu6: MSR_PKGC7_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > cpu6: MSR_PKGC8_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > cpu6: MSR_PKGC9_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > cpu6: MSR_PKGC10_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > This is despite the PKGC configuration register showing that all > states are enabled: > > cpu6: MSR_PKG_CST_CONFIG_CONTROL: 0x1e008008 (UNdemote-C3, UNdemote-C1, demote- C3, demote-C1, locked, pkg-cstate-limit=8 (unlimited)) > > Firmware sets this. Since I can't currently flash modified firmware on this computer, can those values be overridden from userspace?
On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 05:57:52PM +0200, Thomas Witt wrote: > On 05/10/2023 17:30, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > ... > > Right, without the denylist, I expect Thomas' TUXEDO to fail, but I > > still hope we can figure out why. If we just keep it on the denylist, > > that system will suffer from more power consumption than necessary, > > but only after suspend/resume. > > > > A denylist seems like the absolute last resort. In this case we don't > > know about anything *wrong* with those platforms; all we know is that > > our resume path doesn't work. It's likely that it fails on other > > platforms we haven't heard about, too. > > The best guess from Mika and David was a firmware issue, but I run the same > Firmware revision as Werner. I even reflashed the Firmware, but that did not > change anything: Possibly a BIOS settings difference? > Quoting David Box: > > I agree that we should pursue an exception for your system. This is > > looking like a firmware bug. One thing we did notice in the turbostat > > results is your IRTL (Interrupt Response Time Limit) values are bogus: > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC3_IRTL: 0x0000884e (valid, 79872 ns) > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC6_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC7_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC8_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC9_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC10_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > > > This is despite the PKGC configuration register showing that all > > states are enabled: > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKG_CST_CONFIG_CONTROL: 0x1e008008 (UNdemote-C3, UNdemote-C1, > demote- > C3, demote-C1, locked, pkg-cstate-limit=8 (unlimited)) > > > > Firmware sets this. I can't find this discussion, but if there's a firmware issue related to IRTL MSRs, I would want the workaround in intel-idle.c or whatever code deals with the MSRs, not in the ASPM code. Bjorn
Hi, On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 12:22:26PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 05:57:52PM +0200, Thomas Witt wrote: > > On 05/10/2023 17:30, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > ... > > > > Right, without the denylist, I expect Thomas' TUXEDO to fail, but I > > > still hope we can figure out why. If we just keep it on the denylist, > > > that system will suffer from more power consumption than necessary, > > > but only after suspend/resume. > > > > > > A denylist seems like the absolute last resort. In this case we don't > > > know about anything *wrong* with those platforms; all we know is that > > > our resume path doesn't work. It's likely that it fails on other > > > platforms we haven't heard about, too. > > > > The best guess from Mika and David was a firmware issue, but I run the same > > Firmware revision as Werner. I even reflashed the Firmware, but that did not > > change anything: > > Possibly a BIOS settings difference? > > > Quoting David Box: > > > I agree that we should pursue an exception for your system. This is > > > looking like a firmware bug. One thing we did notice in the turbostat > > > results is your IRTL (Interrupt Response Time Limit) values are bogus: > > > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC3_IRTL: 0x0000884e (valid, 79872 ns) > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC6_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC7_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC8_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC9_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC10_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > > > > > This is despite the PKGC configuration register showing that all > > > states are enabled: > > > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKG_CST_CONFIG_CONTROL: 0x1e008008 (UNdemote-C3, UNdemote-C1, > > demote- > > C3, demote-C1, locked, pkg-cstate-limit=8 (unlimited)) > > > > > > Firmware sets this. > > I can't find this discussion, but if there's a firmware issue related > to IRTL MSRs, I would want the workaround in intel-idle.c or whatever > code deals with the MSRs, not in the ASPM code. Unfortunately that discussion never ended up on the mailing list. But in summary that particular system seems to run pretty hot (if I understand correctly what David concluded). This is the reason Thomas has the pm_sleep=deep in the command line and this is why the L1 SS restore then causes the failure on resume. Without this it works fine but consumes lot of energy in s2idle. Can you suggest what we should do with this now? We got report from Tasev Nikola on https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216782 that even if the Asus system is removed from the denylist it works so that we can do. However, with the Thomas' system I'm not sure. If we leave it like this: static int aspm_l1ss_suspend_via_firmware(const struct dmi_system_id *not_used) { return pm_suspend_via_firmware(); } static const struct dmi_system_id aspm_l1ss_denylist[] = { { /* * https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216877 * * This system needs to use suspend to mem instead of its * default (suspend to idle) to avoid draining the battery. * However, the BIOS gets confused if we try to restore the * L1SS registers so avoid doing that if the user forced * suspend to mem. The default suspend to idle on the other * hand needs restoring L1SS to allow the CPU to enter low * power states. This entry should handle both. */ .callback = aspm_l1ss_suspend_via_firmware, .ident = "TUXEDO InfinityBook S 14 v5", .matches = { DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "TUXEDO"), DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "L140CU"), }, }, { } }; Then it should work with Thomas' system (defaults to deep), and TUXEDO with default settings (defaults to s2idle), and with the rest of the world (I hope at least, fingers crossed). Or you want to pursue a solution without the denylist still? I'm out of ideas what could be wrong except that when the pm_sleep=deep it means the BIOS is involved in the suspend/restore of the devices and it may not expect the OS to touch these registers or something along those lines.
On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 11:34:34AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 12:22:26PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 05:57:52PM +0200, Thomas Witt wrote: > > > On 05/10/2023 17:30, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > Right, without the denylist, I expect Thomas' TUXEDO to fail, > > > > but I still hope we can figure out why. If we just keep it on > > > > the denylist, that system will suffer from more power > > > > consumption than necessary, but only after suspend/resume. > > > > > > > > A denylist seems like the absolute last resort. In this case > > > > we don't know about anything *wrong* with those platforms; all > > > > we know is that our resume path doesn't work. It's likely > > > > that it fails on other platforms we haven't heard about, too. > > > > > > The best guess from Mika and David was a firmware issue, but I > > > run the same Firmware revision as Werner. I even reflashed the > > > Firmware, but that did not change anything: > > > > Possibly a BIOS settings difference? > > > > > Quoting David Box: > > > > I agree that we should pursue an exception for your system. > > > > This is looking like a firmware bug. One thing we did notice > > > > in the turbostat results is your IRTL (Interrupt Response Time > > > > Limit) values are bogus: > > > > > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC3_IRTL: 0x0000884e (valid, 79872 ns) > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC6_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC7_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC8_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC9_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC10_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > > > > > > > This is despite the PKGC configuration register showing that all > > > > states are enabled: > > > > > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKG_CST_CONFIG_CONTROL: 0x1e008008 (UNdemote-C3, UNdemote-C1, > > > demote- > > > C3, demote-C1, locked, pkg-cstate-limit=8 (unlimited)) > > > > > > > > Firmware sets this. > > > > I can't find this discussion, but if there's a firmware issue related > > to IRTL MSRs, I would want the workaround in intel-idle.c or whatever > > code deals with the MSRs, not in the ASPM code. > > Unfortunately that discussion never ended up on the mailing list. But in > summary that particular system seems to run pretty hot (if I understand > correctly what David concluded). This is the reason Thomas has the > pm_sleep=deep in the command line and this is why the L1 SS restore then > causes the failure on resume. Without this it works fine but consumes > lot of energy in s2idle. > > Can you suggest what we should do with this now? > > We got report from Tasev Nikola on > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216782 that even if the Asus > system is removed from the denylist it works so that we can do. However, > with the Thomas' system I'm not sure. If we leave it like this: > > static int aspm_l1ss_suspend_via_firmware(const struct dmi_system_id *not_used) > { > return pm_suspend_via_firmware(); > } > > static const struct dmi_system_id aspm_l1ss_denylist[] = { > { > /* > * https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216877 > * > * This system needs to use suspend to mem instead of its > * default (suspend to idle) to avoid draining the battery. > * However, the BIOS gets confused if we try to restore the > * L1SS registers so avoid doing that if the user forced > * suspend to mem. The default suspend to idle on the other > * hand needs restoring L1SS to allow the CPU to enter low > * power states. This entry should handle both. > */ > .callback = aspm_l1ss_suspend_via_firmware, > .ident = "TUXEDO InfinityBook S 14 v5", > .matches = { > DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "TUXEDO"), > DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "L140CU"), > }, > }, > { } > }; > > Then it should work with Thomas' system (defaults to deep), and TUXEDO > with default settings (defaults to s2idle), and with the rest of the > world (I hope at least, fingers crossed). Or you want to pursue a > solution without the denylist still? I'm out of ideas what could be > wrong except that when the pm_sleep=deep it means the BIOS is involved > in the suspend/restore of the devices and it may not expect the OS to > touch these registers or something along those lines. [I think this refers to "mem_sleep_default=deep" (not pm_sleep)] I assume everything was fine before suspend, and it only runs hot after resume. And the platform granted control of the PCIe Capability and the LTR Capability to OSPM via _OSC? If so, I think we should try to find out what the difference is, e.g., compare config space before/after the suspend/resume. Maybe that's already been tried? (I did check the archives but couldn't find details.) Bjorn
On Mon, 2023-10-09 at 11:34 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 11:34:34AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 12:22:26PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 05:57:52PM +0200, Thomas Witt wrote: > > > > On 05/10/2023 17:30, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > > > Right, without the denylist, I expect Thomas' TUXEDO to fail, > > > > > but I still hope we can figure out why. If we just keep it on > > > > > the denylist, that system will suffer from more power > > > > > consumption than necessary, but only after suspend/resume. > > > > > > > > > > A denylist seems like the absolute last resort. In this case > > > > > we don't know about anything *wrong* with those platforms; all > > > > > we know is that our resume path doesn't work. It's likely > > > > > that it fails on other platforms we haven't heard about, too. > > > > > > > > The best guess from Mika and David was a firmware issue, but I > > > > run the same Firmware revision as Werner. I even reflashed the > > > > Firmware, but that did not change anything: > > > > > > Possibly a BIOS settings difference? > > > > > > > Quoting David Box: > > > > > I agree that we should pursue an exception for your system. > > > > > This is looking like a firmware bug. One thing we did notice > > > > > in the turbostat results is your IRTL (Interrupt Response Time > > > > > Limit) values are bogus: > > > > > > > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC3_IRTL: 0x0000884e (valid, 79872 ns) > > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC6_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC7_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC8_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC9_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC10_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > > > > > > > > > This is despite the PKGC configuration register showing that all > > > > > states are enabled: > > > > > > > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKG_CST_CONFIG_CONTROL: 0x1e008008 (UNdemote-C3, UNdemote- > > > > > C1, > > > > demote- > > > > C3, demote-C1, locked, pkg-cstate-limit=8 (unlimited)) > > > > > > > > > > Firmware sets this. > > > > > > I can't find this discussion, but if there's a firmware issue related > > > to IRTL MSRs, I would want the workaround in intel-idle.c or whatever > > > code deals with the MSRs, not in the ASPM code. > > > > Unfortunately that discussion never ended up on the mailing list. But in > > summary that particular system seems to run pretty hot (if I understand > > correctly what David concluded). This is the reason Thomas has the > > pm_sleep=deep in the command line and this is why the L1 SS restore then > > causes the failure on resume. Without this it works fine but consumes > > lot of energy in s2idle. > > > > Can you suggest what we should do with this now? > > > > We got report from Tasev Nikola on > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216782 that even if the Asus > > system is removed from the denylist it works so that we can do. However, > > with the Thomas' system I'm not sure. If we leave it like this: > > > > static int aspm_l1ss_suspend_via_firmware(const struct dmi_system_id > > *not_used) > > { > > return pm_suspend_via_firmware(); > > } > > > > static const struct dmi_system_id aspm_l1ss_denylist[] = { > > { > > /* > > * https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216877 > > * > > * This system needs to use suspend to mem instead of its > > * default (suspend to idle) to avoid draining the battery. > > * However, the BIOS gets confused if we try to restore the > > * L1SS registers so avoid doing that if the user forced > > * suspend to mem. The default suspend to idle on the other > > * hand needs restoring L1SS to allow the CPU to enter low > > * power states. This entry should handle both. > > */ > > .callback = aspm_l1ss_suspend_via_firmware, > > .ident = "TUXEDO InfinityBook S 14 v5", > > .matches = { > > DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "TUXEDO"), > > DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "L140CU"), > > }, > > }, > > { } > > }; > > > > Then it should work with Thomas' system (defaults to deep), and TUXEDO > > with default settings (defaults to s2idle), and with the rest of the > > world (I hope at least, fingers crossed). Or you want to pursue a > > solution without the denylist still? I'm out of ideas what could be > > wrong except that when the pm_sleep=deep it means the BIOS is involved > > in the suspend/restore of the devices and it may not expect the OS to > > touch these registers or something along those lines. > > [I think this refers to "mem_sleep_default=deep" (not pm_sleep)] > > I assume everything was fine before suspend, and it only runs hot > after resume. The system was running hot even before suspend. After boot it could not exit Package C0. At that level it's usually some compute element that is blocking, and not caused by a device's LTR. A cause for this was not found, only signs that BIOS did not configure the system correctly (bogus IRTL values). That issue does appear to be why Thomas needs to use deep since his system cannot use s2idle since it cannot even idle while running. There's no relation I can see between that issue and the PCI device failure after L1 substate restore. But to your point, those PCI devices were working upon boot, with L1 configured, and not working after resume when restored on that system. > And the platform granted control of the PCIe Capability > and the LTR Capability to OSPM via _OSC? Need to confirm this. > > If so, I think we should try to find out what the difference is, e.g., > compare config space before/after the suspend/resume. Maybe that's > already been tried? (I did check the archives but couldn't find > details.) I'll take a look again at the information we got from Thomas and check for config space differences. David
On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 11:34:21AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 11:34:34AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 12:22:26PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 05:57:52PM +0200, Thomas Witt wrote: > > > > On 05/10/2023 17:30, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > > > Right, without the denylist, I expect Thomas' TUXEDO to fail, > > > > > but I still hope we can figure out why. If we just keep it on > > > > > the denylist, that system will suffer from more power > > > > > consumption than necessary, but only after suspend/resume. > > > > > > > > > > A denylist seems like the absolute last resort. In this case > > > > > we don't know about anything *wrong* with those platforms; all > > > > > we know is that our resume path doesn't work. It's likely > > > > > that it fails on other platforms we haven't heard about, too. > > > > > > > > The best guess from Mika and David was a firmware issue, but I > > > > run the same Firmware revision as Werner. I even reflashed the > > > > Firmware, but that did not change anything: > > > > > > Possibly a BIOS settings difference? > > > > > > > Quoting David Box: > > > > > I agree that we should pursue an exception for your system. > > > > > This is looking like a firmware bug. One thing we did notice > > > > > in the turbostat results is your IRTL (Interrupt Response Time > > > > > Limit) values are bogus: > > > > > > > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC3_IRTL: 0x0000884e (valid, 79872 ns) > > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC6_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC7_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC8_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC9_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC10_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > > > > > > > > > This is despite the PKGC configuration register showing that all > > > > > states are enabled: > > > > > > > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKG_CST_CONFIG_CONTROL: 0x1e008008 (UNdemote-C3, UNdemote-C1, > > > > demote- > > > > C3, demote-C1, locked, pkg-cstate-limit=8 (unlimited)) > > > > > > > > > > Firmware sets this. > > > > > > I can't find this discussion, but if there's a firmware issue related > > > to IRTL MSRs, I would want the workaround in intel-idle.c or whatever > > > code deals with the MSRs, not in the ASPM code. > > > > Unfortunately that discussion never ended up on the mailing list. But in > > summary that particular system seems to run pretty hot (if I understand > > correctly what David concluded). This is the reason Thomas has the > > pm_sleep=deep in the command line and this is why the L1 SS restore then > > causes the failure on resume. Without this it works fine but consumes > > lot of energy in s2idle. > > > > Can you suggest what we should do with this now? > > > > We got report from Tasev Nikola on > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216782 that even if the Asus > > system is removed from the denylist it works so that we can do. However, > > with the Thomas' system I'm not sure. If we leave it like this: > > > > static int aspm_l1ss_suspend_via_firmware(const struct dmi_system_id *not_used) > > { > > return pm_suspend_via_firmware(); > > } > > > > static const struct dmi_system_id aspm_l1ss_denylist[] = { > > { > > /* > > * https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216877 > > * > > * This system needs to use suspend to mem instead of its > > * default (suspend to idle) to avoid draining the battery. > > * However, the BIOS gets confused if we try to restore the > > * L1SS registers so avoid doing that if the user forced > > * suspend to mem. The default suspend to idle on the other > > * hand needs restoring L1SS to allow the CPU to enter low > > * power states. This entry should handle both. > > */ > > .callback = aspm_l1ss_suspend_via_firmware, > > .ident = "TUXEDO InfinityBook S 14 v5", > > .matches = { > > DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "TUXEDO"), > > DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "L140CU"), > > }, > > }, > > { } > > }; > > > > Then it should work with Thomas' system (defaults to deep), and TUXEDO > > with default settings (defaults to s2idle), and with the rest of the > > world (I hope at least, fingers crossed). Or you want to pursue a > > solution without the denylist still? I'm out of ideas what could be > > wrong except that when the pm_sleep=deep it means the BIOS is involved > > in the suspend/restore of the devices and it may not expect the OS to > > touch these registers or something along those lines. > > [I think this refers to "mem_sleep_default=deep" (not pm_sleep)] Yes. > I assume everything was fine before suspend, and it only runs hot > after resume. And the platform granted control of the PCIe Capability > and the LTR Capability to OSPM via _OSC? As David commented already it runs hot even before suspend. The platform did give LTR capability to the OS: Jan 02 14:17:52 localhost kernel: acpi PNP0A08:00: _OSC: OS supports [ExtendedConfig ASPM ClockPM Segments MSI HPX-Type3] Jan 02 14:17:52 localhost kernel: acpi PNP0A08:00: _OSC: OS now controls [PME PCIeCapability LTR]
Hi Thomas, I had updated the bugzilla with a request to run some commands to collect more information from your system. Are you still able to work on this? Thanks. https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216877#c27 David On Thu, 2023-10-05 at 17:57 +0200, Thomas Witt wrote: > On 05/10/2023 17:30, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 12:02:58PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 05:23:24PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > ... > > > > > The thing with TUXEDO is that on Thomas's system with mem_sleep=deep > > > this patch (without denylist) breaks the resume as he describes here: > > > > > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216877 > > > > > > However, on exact same TUXEDO system with the same firmwares Werner is > > > not able to reproduce the issue with or without the patch. So I'm not > > > sure what to do and that's why I added denylist that should take effect > > > on Thomas' system when mem_sleep=deep is set but also work on the same > > > system without it. > > > > > > And since we have the denylist, I decided to add the ASUS there to avoid > > > accidentally breaking those too. > > > ... > > > > > > I think there's still something we're missing. > > > > > > > > We restore the LTR config before restoring DEVCTL2 (including the LTR > > > > enable bit) and L1SS state. I don't think we know the state of ASPM > > > > and L1SS at that point, do we? Do you think there could be an issue > > > > there, too? > > > > > > AFAICT LTR does not affect until it is explicitly enabled and I don't > > > think many drivers actually program it (although we have some sort of > > > API for it at least for Intel LPSS devices). > > > > I couldn't find anything in the spec that suggests LTR should be an > > issue. I'm just grasping at straws here. > > > > There's obviously *something* we're doing wrong because ASPM worked > > before suspend, so we should be able to get it to work after resume. > > > > Could we learn anything by dumping config space of the problem devices > > before/after the suspend/resume and comparing them? > > > > If we could figure out a difference between Werner's working TUXEDO > > and Thomas' non-working TUXEDO, that might be a hint, too. > > > > > If you have suggestions, I'm all open. If I understand you would like > > > this to be done like: > > > > > > - Drop the denylist > > > - Add back the suspend/restore of L1SS > > > - Ask everyone in this thread to try it out > > > > > > I can do that no problem but I guess that for the TUXEDO one (Thomas') > > > it probably is going to fail still. > > > > Right, without the denylist, I expect Thomas' TUXEDO to fail, but I > > still hope we can figure out why. If we just keep it on the denylist, > > that system will suffer from more power consumption than necessary, > > but only after suspend/resume. > > > > A denylist seems like the absolute last resort. In this case we don't > > know about anything *wrong* with those platforms; all we know is that > > our resume path doesn't work. It's likely that it fails on other > > platforms we haven't heard about, too. > > > > Bjorn > > The best guess from Mika and David was a firmware issue, but I run the > same Firmware revision as Werner. I even reflashed the Firmware, but > that did not change anything: > > Quoting David Box: > > I agree that we should pursue an exception for your system. This is > > looking like a firmware bug. One thing we did notice in the turbostat > > results is your IRTL (Interrupt Response Time Limit) values are bogus: > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC3_IRTL: 0x0000884e (valid, 79872 ns) > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC6_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC7_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC8_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC9_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > cpu6: MSR_PKGC10_IRTL: 0x00008000 (valid, 0 ns) > > > > This is despite the PKGC configuration register showing that all > > states are enabled: > > > > cpu6: MSR_PKG_CST_CONFIG_CONTROL: 0x1e008008 (UNdemote-C3, > UNdemote-C1, demote- > C3, demote-C1, locked, pkg-cstate-limit=8 (unlimited)) > > > > Firmware sets this. > > Since I can't currently flash modified firmware on this computer, can > those values be overridden from userspace? >
diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c index 59c01d68c6d5..7c72d40ec0ff 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c @@ -1576,7 +1576,7 @@ static void pci_restore_pcie_state(struct pci_dev *dev) { int i = 0; struct pci_cap_saved_state *save_state; - u16 *cap; + u16 *cap, val; save_state = pci_find_saved_cap(dev, PCI_CAP_ID_EXP); if (!save_state) @@ -1591,7 +1591,14 @@ static void pci_restore_pcie_state(struct pci_dev *dev) cap = (u16 *)&save_state->cap.data[0]; pcie_capability_write_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL, cap[i++]); - pcie_capability_write_word(dev, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, cap[i++]); + /* + * Restoring ASPM L1 substates has special requirements + * according to the PCIe spec 6.0. So we restore here only the + * LNKCTL register with the ASPM control field clear. ASPM will + * be restored in pci_restore_aspm_state(). + */ + val = cap[i++] & ~PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_ASPMC; + pcie_capability_write_word(dev, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, val); pcie_capability_write_word(dev, PCI_EXP_SLTCTL, cap[i++]); pcie_capability_write_word(dev, PCI_EXP_RTCTL, cap[i++]); pcie_capability_write_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2, cap[i++]); @@ -1702,6 +1709,7 @@ int pci_save_state(struct pci_dev *dev) pci_save_ltr_state(dev); pci_save_dpc_state(dev); pci_save_aer_state(dev); + pci_save_aspm_state(dev); pci_save_ptm_state(dev); return pci_save_vc_state(dev); } @@ -1815,6 +1823,7 @@ void pci_restore_state(struct pci_dev *dev) pci_restore_rebar_state(dev); pci_restore_dpc_state(dev); pci_restore_ptm_state(dev); + pci_restore_aspm_state(dev); pci_aer_clear_status(dev); pci_restore_aer_state(dev); @@ -3507,6 +3516,11 @@ void pci_allocate_cap_save_buffers(struct pci_dev *dev) if (error) pci_err(dev, "unable to allocate suspend buffer for LTR\n"); + error = pci_add_ext_cap_save_buffer(dev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_L1SS, + 2 * sizeof(u32)); + if (error) + pci_err(dev, "unable to allocate suspend buffer for ASPM-L1SS\n"); + pci_allocate_vc_save_buffers(dev); } diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.h b/drivers/pci/pci.h index 39a8932dc340..11cec757a624 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/pci.h +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.h @@ -567,10 +567,14 @@ int pcie_retrain_link(struct pci_dev *pdev, bool use_lt); void pcie_aspm_init_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev); void pcie_aspm_exit_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev); void pcie_aspm_powersave_config_link(struct pci_dev *pdev); +void pci_save_aspm_state(struct pci_dev *pdev); +void pci_restore_aspm_state(struct pci_dev *pdev); #else static inline void pcie_aspm_init_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev) { } static inline void pcie_aspm_exit_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev) { } static inline void pcie_aspm_powersave_config_link(struct pci_dev *pdev) { } +static inline void pci_save_aspm_state(struct pci_dev *pdev) { } +static inline void pci_restore_aspm_state(struct pci_dev *pdev) { } #endif #ifdef CONFIG_PCIE_ECRC diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c index 1bf630059264..dd0ba59c44b8 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ * Copyright (C) Shaohua Li (shaohua.li@intel.com) */ +#include <linux/dmi.h> #include <linux/kernel.h> #include <linux/math.h> #include <linux/module.h> @@ -17,6 +18,7 @@ #include <linux/pm.h> #include <linux/init.h> #include <linux/slab.h> +#include <linux/suspend.h> #include <linux/jiffies.h> #include <linux/delay.h> #include "../pci.h" @@ -712,6 +714,148 @@ static void pcie_config_aspm_l1ss(struct pcie_link_state *link, u32 state) PCI_L1SS_CTL1_L1SS_MASK, val); } +void pci_save_aspm_state(struct pci_dev *pdev) +{ + struct pci_cap_saved_state *save_state; + u16 l1ss = pdev->l1ss; + u32 *cap; + + /* + * Save L1 substate configuration. The ASPM L0s/L1 configuration + * is already saved in pci_save_pcie_state(). + */ + if (!l1ss) + return; + + save_state = pci_find_saved_ext_cap(pdev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_L1SS); + if (!save_state) + return; + + cap = &save_state->cap.data[0]; + pci_read_config_dword(pdev, l1ss + PCI_L1SS_CTL2, cap++); + pci_read_config_dword(pdev, l1ss + PCI_L1SS_CTL1, cap++); +} + +static int aspm_l1ss_suspend_via_firmware(const struct dmi_system_id *not_used) +{ + return pm_suspend_via_firmware(); +} + +/* + * Do not restore L1 substates for the below systems even if BIOS has enabled + * it initially. This breaks resume from suspend otherwise on these. + */ +static const struct dmi_system_id aspm_l1ss_denylist[] = { + { + /* https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216782 */ + .ident = "ASUS UX305FA", + .matches = { + DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC."), + DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "UX305FA"), + }, + }, + { + /* + * https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216877 + * + * This system needs to use suspend to mem instead of its + * default (suspend to idle) to avoid draining the battery. + * However, the BIOS gets confused if we try to restore the + * L1SS registers so avoid doing that if the user forced + * suspend to mem. The default suspend to idle on the other + * hand needs restoring L1SS to allow the CPU to enter low + * power states. This entry should handle both. + */ + .callback = aspm_l1ss_suspend_via_firmware, + .ident = "TUXEDO InfinityBook S 14 v5", + .matches = { + DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "TUXEDO"), + DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "L140CU"), + }, + }, + { } +}; + +static bool aspm_l1ss_skip_restore(const struct pci_dev *pdev) +{ + const struct dmi_system_id *dmi; + + dmi = dmi_first_match(aspm_l1ss_denylist); + if (dmi) { + /* If the callback returns zero we can restore L1SS */ + if (dmi->callback && !dmi->callback(dmi)) + return false; + + pci_dbg(pdev, "skipping restoring L1 substates on this system\n"); + return true; + } + + return false; +} + +static void pcie_restore_aspm_l1ss(struct pci_dev *pdev) +{ + struct pci_cap_saved_state *save_state; + u32 *cap, ctl1, ctl2, l1_2_enable; + u16 l1ss = pdev->l1ss; + + if (!l1ss) + return; + + if (aspm_l1ss_skip_restore(pdev)) + return; + + save_state = pci_find_saved_ext_cap(pdev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_L1SS); + if (!save_state) + return; + + cap = &save_state->cap.data[0]; + ctl2 = *cap++; + ctl1 = *cap; + + /* + * In addition, Common_Mode_Restore_Time and LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD + * in PCI_L1SS_CTL1 must be programmed *before* setting the L1.2 + * enable bits, even though they're all in PCI_L1SS_CTL1. + */ + l1_2_enable = ctl1 & PCI_L1SS_CTL1_L1_2_MASK; + ctl1 &= ~PCI_L1SS_CTL1_L1_2_MASK; + + /* Write back without enables first (above we cleared them in ctl1) */ + pci_write_config_dword(pdev, l1ss + PCI_L1SS_CTL1, ctl1); + pci_write_config_dword(pdev, l1ss + PCI_L1SS_CTL2, ctl2); + + /* Then write back the enables */ + if (l1_2_enable) + pci_write_config_dword(pdev, l1ss + PCI_L1SS_CTL1, + ctl1 | l1_2_enable); +} + +void pci_restore_aspm_state(struct pci_dev *pdev) +{ + struct pci_cap_saved_state *save_state; + u16 *cap, val; + + save_state = pci_find_saved_cap(pdev, PCI_CAP_ID_EXP); + if (!save_state) + return; + + cap = (u16 *)&save_state->cap.data[0]; + /* Must match the ordering in pci_save/restore_pcie_state() */ + val = cap[1] & PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_ASPMC; + if (!val) + return; + + /* + * We restore L1 substate configuration first before enabling L1 + * as the PCIe spec 6.0 sec 5.5.4 suggests. + */ + pcie_restore_aspm_l1ss(pdev); + + /* Re-enable L0s/L1 */ + pcie_capability_set_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, val); +} + static void pcie_config_aspm_dev(struct pci_dev *pdev, u32 val) { pcie_capability_clear_and_set_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL,
Commit a7152be79b62 ("Revert "PCI/ASPM: Save L1 PM Substates Capability for suspend/resume"") reverted saving and restoring of ASPM L1 Substates due to a regression that caused resume from suspend to fail on certain systems. However, we never added this capability back and this is now causing systems fail to enter low power CPU states, drawing more power from the battery. The original revert mentioned that we restore L1 PM substate configuration even though ASPM L1 may already be enabled. This is due the fact that the pci_restore_aspm_l1ss_state() was called before pci_restore_pcie_state(). Try to enable this functionality again following PCIe r6.0.1, sec 5.5.4 more closely by: 1) Do not restore ASPM configuration in pci_restore_pcie_state() but do that after PCIe capability is restored in pci_restore_aspm_state() following PCIe r6.0, sec 5.5.4. 2) ASPM is first enabled on the upstream component and then downstream (this is already forced by the parent-child ordering of Linux Device Power Management framework). 3) Program ASPM L1 PM substate configuration before L1 enables. 4) Program ASPM L1 PM substate enables last after rest of the fields in the capability are programmed. 5) Add denylist that skips restoring on the ASUS and TUXEDO systems where these regressions happened, just in case. For the TUXEDO case we only skip restore if the BIOS is involved in system suspend (that's forcing "mem_sleep=deep" in the command line). This is to avoid possible power regression when the default suspend to idle is used, and at the same time make sure the devices continue working after resume when the BIOS is involved. Reported-by: Koba Ko <koba.ko@canonical.com> Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217321 Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216782 Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216877 Cc: Tasev Nikola <tasev.stefanoska@skynet.be> Cc: Mark Enriquez <enriquezmark36@gmail.com> Cc: Thomas Witt <kernel@witt.link> Cc: Werner Sembach <wse@tuxedocomputers.com> Tested-by: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com> Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> --- Hi all, Previous versions of the patch can be found: v3: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20230925074636.2893747-1-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com/ v2: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20230911073352.3472918-1-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com/ v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20230627062442.54008-1-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com/ Changes from v3: - Use pcie_capability_set_word() instead. - Add tag from Ilpo. Changes from v2: - Added tested by tag from Kai-Heng Feng. - Dropped the two unneeded (u32 *) casts. - Dropped unnecessary comment. Changes from v1: - We move ASPM enables from pci_restore_pcie_state() into pci_restore_aspm_state() to make sure they are clear when L1SS bits are programmed (as per PCIe spec). - The denylist includes the TUXEDO system as well but only if suspend is done via BIOS (e.g mem_sleep=deep is forced by user). This way the PCIe devices should continue working after S3 resume, and at the same time allow better power savings. If the default s2idle is used then we restore L1SS to allow the CPU enter lower power states. This is the best I was able to come up to make everyone happy. drivers/pci/pci.c | 18 ++++- drivers/pci/pci.h | 4 ++ drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c | 144 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 164 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)