[PATCH net-next 1/4] ixgbe: sparc: rename the ARCH_WANT_RELAX_ORDER to IXGBE_ALLOW_RELAXED_ORDER

Gabriele Paoloni gabriele.paoloni at huawei.com
Wed Apr 19 07:28:02 PDT 2017

Hi David

Many thanks for your reply

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Laight [mailto:David.Laight at ACULAB.COM]
> Sent: 18 April 2017 14:26
> To: Gabriele Paoloni; davem at davemloft.net
> Cc: Catalin Marinas; Will Deacon; Mark Rutland; Robin Murphy;
> jeffrey.t.kirsher at intel.com; alexander.duyck at gmail.com; linux-arm-
> kernel at lists.infradead.org; netdev at vger.kernel.org; Dingtianhong;
> Linuxarm
> Subject: RE: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] ixgbe: sparc: rename the
> From: Gabriele Paoloni
> > Sent: 13 April 2017 10:11
> > > > Till now only the Intel ixgbe could support enable
> > > > Relaxed ordering in the drivers for special architecture,
> > > > but the ARCH_WANT_RELAX_ORDER is looks like a general name
> > > > for all arch, so rename to a specific name for intel
> > > > card looks more appropriate.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong at huawei.com>
> > >
> > > This is not a driver specific facility.
> > >
> > > Any driver can test this symbol and act accordingly.
> > >
> > > Just because IXGBE is the first and only user, doesn't mean
> > > the facility is driver specific.
> >
> >
> > Please correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that the
> standard
> > way to enable/disable relaxed ordering is to set/clear bit 4 of the
> Device
> > Control Register (PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_RELAX_EN 0x0010 /* Enable relaxed
> > ordering */).
> > Now I have looked up for all drivers either enabling or disabling
> relaxed
> > ordering and none of them seems to need a symbol to decide whether to
> > enable it or not.
> > Also it seems to me enabling/disabling relaxed ordering is never
> bound to the
> > host architecture.
> >
> > So why this should be (or it is expected to be) a generic symbol?
> > Wouldn't it be more correct to have this as a driver specific symbol
> now and
> > move it to a generic one later once we have other drivers requiring
> it?
> 'Relaxed ordering' is a bit in the TLP header.
> A device (like the ixgbe hardware) can set it for some transactions and
> still have the transactions 'ordered enough' for the driver to work.
> (If all transactions have 'relaxed ordering' set then I suspect it is
> almost impossible to write a working driver.)
> The host side could (probably does) have a bit to enable 'relaxed
> ordering',
> it could also enforce stronger ordering than required by the PCIe spec
> (eg keeping reads in order).

My understanding is that from the host side the host is always allowed
(as long as it complies with the rules specified in sec.2.4.1 of the PCIe
Specs) to set the RO attribute in the TLP and the target function should
be abel to cope with it.

On the device side the device is allowed to set the RO attribute in the
TLP only if bit4 of the "Device Control Register" is set.

> Clearly, on some sparc64 systems, ixgbe needs to use 'relaxed
> ordering'.
> To me this requires two separate bits be enabled:
> 1) to the ixgbe driver to generate the 'relaxed' TLP.
> 2) to the host to actually act on them.

My understanding is that for performance reasons when possible we
should enable relaxed ordering and I think this is up to the host
(i.e. the host somehow should know when he is capable of handling
RO TLPs and therefore it will try to enable it on the driver)

> If the ixgbe driver works when both are enabled why have options to
> disable either (except for bug-finding)?

I think that by default the ixgbe driver disable RO since there are
issues with "some chipsets" according to commit 3d5c520727ce "ixgbe:
move disabling of relaxed ordering in start_hw()".
What this means is a bit obscure to me and seems to be not related to
the host architecture

Also looking at where and why the other drivers set/clear the "Enable
Relaxed Ordering" bit it seems that currently this is not tied to the
host architecture nor to any global symbol; instead it seems purely
dependent on the PCIe device chipset itself.

> 	David

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list