>> Yes, I think that would be safe. If the switch is set to a larger MPS
>> than the hot-added device supports, I don't think we can safely use
>> the device.
>
> I opened a bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60671
> for this problem. Please correct any mistakes in my summary
> Yes, I think that would be safe. If the switch is set to a larger MPS
> than the hot-added device supports, I don't think we can safely use
> the device.
OK, I will refresh my patch, after test in my machine, I will send it out.
Thanks!
Yijing.
>
> Bjorn
>
>
--
Thanks!
Yijing
--
To uns
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:15 AM, Yijing Wang wrote:
>> Hi Bjorn,
>>I didn't observe a performance difference between MPS=128 and MPS=512. I
>> use ping $dest_ip -s 65500(large size packet)
>> to test the different situations.
>
> Inter
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:15 AM, Yijing Wang wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
>I didn't observe a performance difference between MPS=128 and MPS=512. I
> use ping $dest_ip -s 65500(large size packet)
> to test the different situations.
Interesting. "ping" is probably not a good way to see performance
dif
>>> PCIe Spec does not explicitly mention this issue, we can only get the
>>> message that
>>> root port/ root complex can split the TLP into smaller packets. For instance
>>> one 256B packet split into two 128B packet.
>>>
>>> I confirm this issue in my X86 machine and IA64 machine.
>>> 1. I unlo
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Yijing Wang wrote:
>> On 2013/7/30 7:33, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Yijing Wang wrote:
Hi Bjorn and Jon,
I'm sorry to disturb you. This patch is sent so long, but
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Yijing Wang wrote:
> On 2013/7/30 7:33, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Yijing Wang wrote:
>>> Hi Bjorn and Jon,
>>>I'm sorry to disturb you. This patch is sent so long, but nobody seems
>>> had comment about it.
>>> Do you have any c
On 2013/7/30 7:33, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Yijing Wang wrote:
>> Hi Bjorn and Jon,
>>I'm sorry to disturb you. This patch is sent so long, but nobody seems
>> had comment about it.
>> Do you have any comment with this patch?
>>
>> This patch try to update devic
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Yijing Wang wrote:
> Hi Bjorn and Jon,
>I'm sorry to disturb you. This patch is sent so long, but nobody seems had
> comment about it.
> Do you have any comment with this patch?
>
> This patch try to update device mps in following case:
> 1) target device unde
Hi Bjorn and Jon,
I'm sorry to disturb you. This patch is sent so long, but nobody seems had
comment about it.
Do you have any comment with this patch?
This patch try to update device mps in following case:
1) target device under root port
Because root port can split TLP, so target device m
Currently we dont't update device's mps vaule when doing
pci device hot-add. The hot-added device's mps will be set
to default value (128B). But the upstream port device's mps
may be larger than 128B which was set by firmware during
system bootup. In this case the new added device may not
work norm
11 matches
Mail list logo
