Re: [PATCH V11 7/8] PCI: Enable 10-Bit Tag support for PCIe Endpoint device

On 2021/11/4 0:02, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 06:05:34PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:

quoted

On 2021/11/2 6:33, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 05:02:41PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

quoted

On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 09:53:47PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:

quoted

10-Bit Tag capability, introduced in PCIe-4.0 increases the total Tag
field size from 8 bits to 10 bits.

PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 "Considerations for Implementing
10-Bit Tag Capabilities" Implementation Note:

  For platforms where the RC supports 10-Bit Tag Completer capability,
  it is highly recommended for platform firmware or operating software
  that configures PCIe hierarchies to Set the 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable
  bit automatically in Endpoints with 10-Bit Tag Requester capability.
  This enables the important class of 10-Bit Tag capable adapters that
  send Memory Read Requests only to host memory.

It's safe to enable 10-bit tags for all devices below a Root Port that
supports them. Switches that lack 10-Bit Tag Completer capability are
still able to forward NPRs and Completions carrying 10-Bit Tags correctly,
since the two new Tag bits are in TLP Header bits that were formerly
Reserved.

Side note: the reason we want to do this to increase performance by
allowing more outstanding requests.  Do you have any benchmarking that
we can mention here to show that this is actually a benefit?  I don't
doubt that it is, but I assume you've measured it and it would be nice
to advertise it.

Hmmm.  I did a quick Google search looking for "nvme pcie 10-bit tags"
hoping to find some performance info, but what I *actually* found was
several reports of 10-bit tags causing breakage:

  https://www.reddit.com/r/MSI_Gaming/comments/exjvzg/x570_apro_7c37vh72beta_version_has_anyone_tryed_it/
  https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?115064-Beware-of-agesa-1-0-0-4B-bios-not-good!/page2
  https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?threads/sound-blaster-z-has-weird-behaviour-after-updating-bios-x570-gaming-edge-wifi.325223/page-2
  https://gearspace.com/board/electronic-music-instruments-and-electronic-music-production/1317189-h8000fw-firewire-facts-2020-must-read.html
  https://www.soundonsound.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=69651&start=12
  https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=30307

This is a big problem for me.

Some of these might be a broken BIOS that turns on 10-bit tags
when the completer doesn't support them.  I didn't try to debug
them to that level.  But the last thing I want is to enable 10-bit
by default and cause boot issues or sound card issues or whatever.

It seems a BIOS software bug, as it turned on (as default) a 10-Bit
Tag Field for RP, but the card (non-Gen4 card) does not support
10-Bit Completer.

It doesn't matter *where* the problem is.  If we change Linux to
*expose* a BIOS bug, that's just as much of a problem as if the bug
were in Linux.  Users are not equipped to diagnose or fix problems
like that.

quoted

This patch we enable 10-Bit Tag Requester for EP when RC supports
10-Bit Tag Completer capability. So it shuld be worked ok.

That's true as long as the RC supports 10-bit tags correctly when it
advertises support for them.  It "should" work :)

But it does remind me that if the RC doesn't support 10-bit tags, but
we use sysfs to enable 10-bit tags for a reqester that intends to use
P2PDMA to a peer that *does* support them, I don't think there's
any check in the DMA API that prevents the driver from setting up DMA
to the RC in addition to the peer.

Current we use sysfs to enable/disable 10-bit tags for a requester also
depend on the RP support 10-bit tag completer, so it will be ok.

quoted

But I still think default to "on" will be better,
Current we enable 10-Bit Tag, in the future PCIe 6.0 maybe need to use
14-Bit tags to get good performance.

Maybe we can default to "on" based on BIOS date or something.  Older
systems that want the benefit can use the param to enable it, and if
there's a problem, the cause will be obvious ("we booted with
'pci=tag-bits=10' and things broke").

If we enable 10-bit tags by default on systems from 2022 or newer, we
shouldn't break any existing systems, and we have a chance to discover
any problems and add quirk if necessary.

quoted

quoted

In any case, we (by which I'm afraid I mean "you" :)) need to
investigate the problem reports, figure out whether we will see
similar problems, and fix them before merging if we can.

We have tested a PCIe 5.0 network card on FPGA with 10-Bit tag worked
ok. I have not got the performance data as FPGA is slow.

10-bit tag support appeared in the spec four years ago (PCIe r4.0, in
September, 2017).  Surely there is production hardware that supports
this and could demonstrate a benefit from this.

I found the below introduction about "Number of tags needed to achieve
maximum throughput for PCIe 4.0 and PCIe 5.0 links"
https://www.synopsys.com/designware-ip/technical-bulletin/accelerating-32gtps-pcie5-designs.html

It seems pretty clear.

We need a commit log that says "enabling 10-bit tags allows more
outstanding transactions, which improves performance of adapters like
X by Y% on these workloads," not a log that says "we think enabling
10-bit tags is safe, but users with non-compliant hardware may see new
PCIe errors or even non-bootable systems, and they should use boot
param X to work around this."

Looks good, will fix the commit log.
I investigate some PCIe 4.0 cards such as mlx cx5(PCIe 4.0 16GT/s
x16), a NVME SSD(PCIe 4.0 16GT/s X4), but these cards only support
10-bit tag completer not support 10-bit tag requester. Maybe
these cards use 8-bit tag can achieve its performance specs.

quoted

Current we enable 10-Bit Tag Requester for EP when RC supports
10-Bit Tag Completer capability. It should be worked ok except
hardware bugs, we also provide boot param to disable 10-Bit Tag if
the hardware really have a bug or can do some quirks as 8-bit tag
has done if we have known the hardware.

The problem is that turning it on by default means systems with
hardware defects *used* to work but now they mysteriously *stop*
working.  Yes, a boot param can work around that, but it's just
not an acceptable user experience.  Maybe there are no such defects.
I dunno.

Ok, current defaulted to "off" and use boot param and sysfs to turn on
maybe a safe choice.

Thanks,
Dongdong

Bjorn
.