On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 04:43:30PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On systems that don't support any PCIe services other than bandwidth
> notification, pcie_message_numbers() can return zero vectors, causing
> the vector reallocation in pcie_port_enable_irq_vec() to retry with
> zero, which fails,
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 12:53:07 -0500
Alex G wrote:
> On 4/23/19 12:10 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 09:33:53AM -0500, Alex G wrote:
> >> On 4/22/19 7:33 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>> There is nothing wrong happening here that needs to fill logs. I
> >>> thought maybe
On 4/22/19 5:43 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
On systems that don't support any PCIe services other than bandwidth
notification, pcie_message_numbers() can return zero vectors, causing
the vector reallocation in pcie_port_enable_irq_vec() to retry with
zero, which fails, resulting in fallback to
On 4/23/19 12:10 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 09:33:53AM -0500, Alex G wrote:
On 4/22/19 7:33 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
There is nothing wrong happening here that needs to fill logs. I
thought maybe if I enabled notification of autonomous bandwidth
changes that it might ca
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 09:33:53AM -0500, Alex G wrote:
> On 4/22/19 7:33 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > There is nothing wrong happening here that needs to fill logs. I
> > thought maybe if I enabled notification of autonomous bandwidth
> > changes that it might categorize these as something we c
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:27:39 -0500
Alex G wrote:
> On 4/23/19 11:22 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > Nor should pci-core decide what link speed changes are intended or
> > errors. Minimally we should be enabling drivers to receive this
> > feedback. Thanks,
>
> Not errors. pci core reports tha
On 4/23/19 11:22 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
Nor should pci-core decide what link speed changes are intended or
errors. Minimally we should be enabling drivers to receive this
feedback. Thanks,
Not errors. pci core reports that a link speed change event has occured.
Period.
Alex
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:03:04 -0500
Alex G wrote:
> On 4/23/19 10:34 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 09:33:53 -0500
> > Alex G wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/22/19 7:33 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 19:05:57 -0500
> >>> Alex G wrote:
> echo :07:00.
On 4/23/19 10:34 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 09:33:53 -0500
Alex G wrote:
On 4/22/19 7:33 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 19:05:57 -0500
Alex G wrote:
echo :07:00.0:pcie010 |
sudo tee /sys/bus/pci_express/drivers/pcie_bw_notification/unbind
That's
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 09:34:08AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 09:33:53 -0500 Alex G wrote:
> > 0.5W savings on a 100+W GPU? I agree it's meaningless.
>
> Evidence? Regardless, I don't have control of the driver that's making
> these changes, but the claim seems unfounded
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 09:33:53 -0500
Alex G wrote:
> On 4/22/19 7:33 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 19:05:57 -0500
> > Alex G wrote:
> >> echo :07:00.0:pcie010 |
> >> sudo tee /sys/bus/pci_express/drivers/pcie_bw_notification/unbind
> >
> > That's a bad solution for us
On 4/22/19 7:33 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 19:05:57 -0500
Alex G wrote:
echo :07:00.0:pcie010 |
sudo tee /sys/bus/pci_express/drivers/pcie_bw_notification/unbind
That's a bad solution for users, this is meaningless tracking of a
device whose driver is actively managing
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 19:05:57 -0500
Alex G wrote:
> On 4/22/19 5:43 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > [ 329.725607] vfio-pci :07:00.0: 32.000 Gb/s available PCIe bandwidth,
> > limited by 2.5 GT/s x16 link at :00:02.0 (capable of 64.000 Gb/s with 5
> > GT/s x16 link)
> > [ 708.151488] vfio-
On 4/22/19 5:43 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
[ 329.725607] vfio-pci :07:00.0: 32.000 Gb/s available PCIe bandwidth,
limited by 2.5 GT/s x16 link at :00:02.0 (capable of 64.000 Gb/s with 5
GT/s x16 link)
[ 708.151488] vfio-pci :07:00.0: 32.000 Gb/s available PCIe bandwidth,
limited by
14 matches
Mail list logo
