Re: [PATCH] PCI/LINK: Account for BW notification in vector calculation

[Lukas Wunner]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 09:34:08AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 09:33:53 -0500 Alex G <mr.nuke.me@xxxxxxxxx> 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 and irrelevant.

On laptops, 0.5 W can result in noticeably longer battery life.

> I can see why we might want to
> be notified of degraded links due to signal issues, but what I'm
> reporting is that there are also entirely normal and benign reasons
> that a link might be reduced, we can't seem to tell the difference
> between a fault and this normal dynamic scaling, and the assumption of
> a fault is spamming dmesg.  So, I don't think what we have here is well
> cooked.  Do drivers have a mechanism to opt-out of this error
> reporting?

Is dmesg spammed even if no driver is bound to a GPU?  If so, that would
suggest a solution that's not dependent on drivers.  E.g., the
bw_notification port service could avoid reports for devices matching
PCI_BASE_CLASS_DISPLAY.  (It could also avoid binding to ports whose
children include such a device, but the child may be hot-pluggable
and thus appear only after the port is bound.)  Then we'd still get
a notification on boot about degraded link speed, but not continuous
messages.

Thanks,

Lukas