On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 06:04:50PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 12:54:20PM -0700, David Box wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 03:43:45PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 01:35:22PM -0700, David E. Box wrote:
> > > > Synthetic PCIe hierarchies, such as those created by Intel VMD, are not
> > > > enumerated by firmware and do not receive BIOS-provided ASPM or CLKPM
> > > > defaults. Devices in such domains may therefore run without the intended
> > > > power management.
> > > >
> > > > Add a host-bridge mechanism that lets controller drivers supply their own
> > > > defaults. A new aspm_default_link_state field in struct pci_host_bridge is
> > > > set via pci_host_set_default_pcie_link_state(). During link initialization,
> > > > if this field is non-zero, ASPM and CLKPM defaults come from it instead of
> > > > BIOS.
> > > >
> > > > This enables drivers like VMD to align link power management with platform
> > > > expectations and avoids embedding controller-specific quirks in ASPM core
> > > > logic.
> > >
> > > I think this kind of sidesteps the real issue. Drivers for host
> > > controllers or PCI devices should tell us about *broken* things, but
> > > not about things advertised by the hardware and available for use.
> >
> > I agree with the principle. The intent isn’t for VMD (or any controller) to
> > override valid platform policy. It’s to handle synthetic domains where the
> > platform doesn’t provide any policy path (no effective _OSC/FADT for the child
> > hierarchy). In those cases, the controller is the only agent that knows the
> > topology and can supply sane defaults.
> >
> > I’m happy to tighten the patch to explicitly cover synthetic domains only.
> > Instead of an API, we could have a boolean flag 'aspm_synthetic_domain'. When
> > set by the controller, we can do:
> >
> > if (host_bridge->aspm_synthetic_domain)
> > link->aspm_default = PCIE_LINK_STATE_ALL;
> >
> > This at least addresses your concern about policy decision, leaving it to the
> > core to determine how these domains are handled rather than an ABI that lets
> > domains set policy.
> >
> > > The only documented policy controls I'm aware of for ASPM are:
> > >
> > > - FADT "PCIe ASPM Controls" bit ("if set, OS must not enable ASPM
> > > control on this platform")
> > >
> > > - _OSC negotiation for control of the PCIe Capability (OS is only
> > > allowed to write PCI_EXP_LNKCTL if platform has granted control to
> > > the OS)
> > >
> > > I think what we *should* be doing is enabling ASPM when it's
> > > advertised, subject to those platform policy controls and user choices
> > > like CONFIG_PCIEASPM_PERFORMANCE/POWERSAVE/etc and sysfs attributes.
> > >
> > > So basically I think link->aspm_default should be PCIE_LINK_STATE_ALL
> > > without drivers doing anything at all. Maybe we have to carve out
> > > exceptions, e.g., "VMD hierarchies are exempt from _OSC," or "devices
> > > on x86 systems before 2026 can't enable more ASPM than BIOS did," or
> > > whatever. Is there any baby step we can make in that direction?
> > >
> > > This feels a little scary, so feel free to convince me it can't be
> > > done :)
> >
> > I understand your direction of enabling all advertised states by
> > default (subject to FADT/_OSC and user settings). To explore that,
> > I’ll send an RFC in parallel with this patch that proposes a baby
> > step, e.g. add instrumentation so we can see where BIOS left
> > capabilities unused, and make it opt-in via a boot param so we can
> > evaluate impact safely.
>
> The instrumentation, absolutely. We need something about what was
> already enabled and when we change things.
>
> > So this series will handle the VMD gap directly, and the RFC can
> > kick off the wider discussion about defaults on ACPI-managed hosts.
> > Does that sound like a reasonable approach and split?
>
> I don't really want a parallel approach because I don't think it would
> ever converge again. BUT I think you're still OK for VMD, because I
> think the default should be PCIE_LINK_STATE_ALL, and when we carve out
> the exceptions that would not be in vmd.c, and it's easy to say that
> there's no exception for VMD.
While I agree this is a better overall direction, it still won’t cover VMD in
the “FADT disallows OS ASPM control” case. VMD (and others) are already using
pci_enable_link_state() to set PCIE_LINK_STATE_ALL. But that doesn’t apply when
aspm_disabled = 1, which is the primary issue this patch addresses — moving away
from a runtime control setting to init-time and allowing policy to be set even
when aspm_disabled = 1.
I want to be clear that this is needed because VMD is NOT fully ACPI-compliant.
There is AML code, but it’s deliberately obfuscated to prevent the OS from
enumerating the devices natively [1]. VMD was designed to give the driver
complete control over the domain configuration, and that includes power
management settings.
So I can send a patch to make the default PCIE_LINK_STATE_ALL, but I would still
need a follow-on in that series that does something like:
if (host_bridge->synthetic_domain)
link->aspm_default = PCIE_LINK_STATE_ALL;
That carve-out is still required, because without it synthetic domains like VMD
would inherit invalid or nonexistent BIOS defaults. The key difference is that
only vmd.c would set itself as synthetic_domain; ASPM core still decides what
policy applies.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/4352365.LvFx2qVVIh@kreacher/
David
