From: Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [git pull] PCI fixes
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:58:44 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EDF1CB4.5040305@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFwuZxGZhXyhj+cb5WLnFPDh45Dy6BwgmvEQKAM5swaM6w@mail.gmail.com>
(2011/12/07 1:14), Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Kenji Kaneshige
> <kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>
>> In the past, pciehp waits 100 ms instead of 1 sec after checking the link
>> state. This 100 ms was based on PCIe spec.
>
> I would like to point out that these kinds of delays are *really*
> annoying to users. And they add up.
>
> One second per se is not a huge problem, but imagine that you're
> hotplugging some regular user device (think thunderbolt or something
> that we'd expect normal users to see). First one second for the kernel
> to even see it, then some random udev rules, then some disk spinup
> times or whatever, and soon a few delays here and a few delays there,
> and it takes say three seconds for the folder to show up on the
> desktop (or whatever acknowledgement of "yes, I see your device now").
>
> That's a *long* time, and it's irritating to the user. It makes the
> user think "the machine is slow".
>
> We used to have this exact problem with USB hotplugging with slow
> devices, so I know. It's still not necessarily immediate, but it's
> better than it has been.
>
> One second *total* is what people will consider pretty much immediate.
> Any more than that is "thumb twiddling time".
>
> And quite frankly, an unconditional one-second delay here seems bad.
> Two seconds was unacceptable, one second is just bad.
>
>> This is
>> based on the PCIe description "software must allow 1 second after the Data
>> Link Layer Link Active bit reads 1b before it is permitted to determine
>> that a hot plugged device which fails to return a Successful Completion for
>> a Valid Configuration Request is a broken device".
>
> Quite frankly, the way that reads to me says "you must wait at most 1s
> before you consider a device broken".
>
> But a *successful* read of the LT bit should abort the wait early. So
> that good devices that aren't broken can complete setup much faster.
>
> Please try to make something like that work. Instead of always waiting
> for one second, wait for up to one second only for failure cases. Any
> possibility of that?
>
> Clearly most devices are perfectly fine almost immediately. It's sad
> to wait for good devices for no good reason.
>
Thank you for comments. Yes, I think we can do more efforts on this.
To improve this, I think what we need is something to know if configuration
request to the hot-added device starts working. One possible idea so far is
to enable CRS Software Visibility and check vendor ID. The pci_scan_device()
function already has vendor ID check, but the code to enable CRS was removed
for some reason.
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=ad7edfe0490877864dc0312e5f3315ea37fc4b3a
Regards,
Kenji Kaneshige
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-07 7:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 80+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-23 22:44 Jesse Barnes
2011-11-23 23:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-12-05 19:22 ` Jesse Barnes
2011-12-06 8:08 ` Kenji Kaneshige
2011-12-06 16:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-12-06 22:36 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-12-07 8:18 ` Kenji Kaneshige
2011-12-07 19:20 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-12-07 7:58 ` Kenji Kaneshige [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-03-05 21:49 Jesse Barnes
2012-02-17 17:24 Jesse Barnes
2011-12-17 17:29 Jesse Barnes
2011-12-18 2:33 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-12-18 5:52 ` Jesse Barnes
2011-12-18 22:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-01-06 20:46 ` Jesse Barnes
2012-01-07 1:14 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-08-19 16:17 Jesse Barnes
2011-08-19 16:46 ` Greg KH
2011-08-19 17:12 ` Jesse Barnes
2011-08-19 17:19 ` Jesse Barnes
2011-06-23 20:37 Jesse Barnes
2011-06-24 15:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-06-24 15:53 ` Jesse Barnes
2011-06-24 16:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-06-24 16:11 ` Jesse Barnes
2011-06-24 22:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-06-25 0:00 ` Jesse Barnes
2011-06-25 0:17 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-06-28 17:02 ` Jesse Barnes
2011-06-29 1:04 ` Ram Pai
2011-03-25 17:22 Jesse Barnes
2010-12-17 23:29 Jesse Barnes
2010-11-15 17:45 Jesse Barnes
2010-11-16 11:16 ` Andreas Schwab
2010-11-16 11:23 ` Wolfram Sang
2010-11-16 17:00 ` Jesse Barnes
2010-08-31 15:49 Jesse Barnes
2010-06-09 22:53 Jesse Barnes
2010-06-09 23:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-06-10 0:20 ` Jesse Barnes
2010-06-11 21:02 ` Jesse Barnes
2010-04-29 3:14 Jesse Barnes
2010-04-23 20:37 Jesse Barnes
2010-03-26 23:33 Jesse Barnes
2010-01-29 0:25 Jesse Barnes
2010-01-07 22:34 Jesse Barnes
2009-12-28 16:10 Jesse Barnes
2009-11-11 8:12 Jesse Barnes
2009-10-12 17:32 Jesse Barnes
2009-08-10 17:30 Jesse Barnes
2009-07-06 18:00 Jesse Barnes
2009-06-06 20:32 Jesse Barnes
2009-05-15 22:09 Jesse Barnes
2009-04-27 18:54 Jesse Barnes
2009-04-07 18:00 Jesse Barnes
2009-02-26 22:24 Jesse Barnes
2009-02-26 22:36 ` Matthew Wilcox
2009-02-26 22:39 ` Jesse Barnes
2009-02-27 0:45 ` Jesse Barnes
2009-02-13 22:07 Jesse Barnes
2009-02-03 2:19 Jesse Barnes
2009-01-21 22:00 Jesse Barnes
2008-12-19 1:30 Jesse Barnes
2008-11-13 20:50 Jesse Barnes
2008-11-07 17:00 Jesse Barnes
2008-09-23 19:14 Jesse Barnes
2008-09-13 0:02 Jesse Barnes
2008-08-25 17:07 Jesse Barnes
2008-08-19 17:03 Jesse Barnes
2008-08-11 17:27 Jesse Barnes
2008-07-07 22:34 Jesse Barnes
2008-06-14 20:23 Jesse Barnes
2008-06-14 20:29 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-06-06 18:26 Jesse Barnes
2008-06-06 22:04 ` Jeff Garzik
2008-06-06 22:16 ` Jesse Barnes
2008-05-27 22:55 Jesse Barnes
2008-05-20 17:51 Jesse Barnes
2008-05-13 17:42 Jesse Barnes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4EDF1CB4.5040305@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome