Re: Workaround for Intel MPS errata

[Jon Mason]

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/04/2011 11:46 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>> On 10/03/2011 05:12 PM, Jon Mason wrote:
>>>
>>>     PCI: Workaround for Intel MPS errata
>>>
>>>     Intel 5000 and 5100 series memory controllers have a known issue if
>>> read
>>>     completion coalescing is enabled (the default setting) and the PCI-E
>>>     Maximum Payload Size is set to 256B.  To work around this issue,
>>> disable
>>>     read completion coalescing if the MPS is 256B.
>>>
>>>     It is worth noting that there is no function to undo the disable of
>>> read
>>>     completion coalescing, and the performance benefit of read completion
>>>     coalescing will be lost if the MPS is set from 256B to 128B.  It is
>>> only
>>>     possible to have this issue via hotplug removing the only 256B MPS
>>>     device in the system (thus making all of the other devices in the
>>> system
>>>     have a performance degradation without the benefit of any 256B
>>>     transfers).  Therefore, this trade off is acceptable.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/specification-update/5000-chipset-memory-controller-hub-specification-update.pdf
>>>
>>> http://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/specification-update/5100-memory-controller-hub-chipset-specification-update.pdf
>>>
>>>     Thanks to Jesse Brandeburg and Ben Hutchings for providing insight
>>> into
>>>     the problem.
>>>
>>>     Reported-by: Avi Kivity<avi@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>     Signed-off-by: Jon Mason<mason@xxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> +
>>> +        if (!(val&  (1<<  10))) {
>>> +            done = true;
>>> +            return;
>>> +        }
>>
>> Here, you bail out if bit 10 is clear.  So if we're here, it's set.
>>
>>> +
>>> +        val |= (1<<  10);
>>
>> Now it's even more set?
>>
>
> Even with this line changed to clear bit 10, I still get a hard lockup.  Do
> we need to clear this bit on the other 5000 devices?  I notice they have
> similar values in word 0x48, with bits 10 set in them.
>
> What does "Device 7-2,0" refer to in the workaround description?  Seems to
> me we need to apply the workaround to the PCIe ports as well.

I believe you are correct.  On my system (which I still can't get to
fail by enabling the RCC bit), I have
00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation 5000X Chipset Memory Controller
Hub (rev 12)
00:02.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 5000 Series Chipset PCI Express
x4 Port 2 (rev 12)
00:03.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 5000 Series Chipset PCI Express
x4 Port 3 (rev 12)
00:04.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 5000 Series Chipset PCI Express
x8 Port 4-5 (rev 12)
00:05.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 5000 Series Chipset PCI Express
x4 Port 5 (rev 12)
00:06.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 5000 Series Chipset PCI Express
x8 Port 6-7 (rev 12)
00:07.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 5000 Series Chipset PCI Express
x4 Port 7 (rev 12)

Those PCI devices numbers match perfectly to the ones from the
erratum.  Patch to disable the bit on those devices coming shortly.

Thanks,
Jon

>
> --
> error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/