Re: [RFC] [PATCH net-next v5 0/3] r8169: Implement dynamic ASPM mechanism for recent 1.0/2.5Gbps Realtek NICs

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 12:17:26PM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 6:09 AM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 11:44:14PM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
> > > The purpose of the series is to get comments and reviews so we can merge
> > > and test the series in downstream kernel.
> > >
> > > The latest Realtek vendor driver and its Windows driver implements a
> > > feature called "dynamic ASPM" which can improve performance on it's
> > > ethernet NICs.
> > >
> > > Heiner Kallweit pointed out the potential root cause can be that the
> > > buffer is too small for its ASPM exit latency.
> >
> > I looked at the lspci data in your bugzilla
> > (https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214307).
> >
> > L1.2 is enabled, which requires the Latency Tolerance Reporting
> > capability, which helps determine when the Link will be put in L1.2.
> > IIUC, these are analogous to the DevCap "Acceptable Latency" values.
> > Zero latency values indicate the device will be impacted by any delay
> > (PCIe r5.0, sec 6.18).
> >
> > Linux does not currently program those values, so the values there
> > must have been set by the BIOS.  On the working AMD system, they're
> > set to 1048576ns, while on the broken Intel system, they're set to
> > 3145728ns.
> >
> > I don't really understand how these values should be computed, and I
> > think they depend on some electrical characteristics of the Link, so
> > I'm not sure it's *necessarily* a problem that they are different.
> > But a 3X difference does seem pretty large.
> >
> > So I'm curious whether this is related to the problem.  Here are some
> > things we could try on the broken Intel system:
> 
> Original network speed, tested via iperf3:
> TX: ~255 Mbps
> RX: ~490 Mbps
> 
> >   - What happens if you disable ASPM L1.2 using
> >     /sys/devices/pci*/.../link/l1_2_aspm?
> 
> TX: ~670 Mbps
> RX: ~670 Mbps

Do you remember if there were any dropped packets here?  You mentioned
at [1] that you have also seen reports of issues with L0s and L1.1.
If you disable L1.2, L0s and L1.1 *should* still be enabled.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAAd53p4v+CmupCu2+3vY5N64WKkxcNvpk1M7+hhNoposx+aYCg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx