Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

| From: Ding Tianhong | Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 6:18 PM | | If no other more suggestion, I will send a new version and remove the | enable_pcie_relaxed_ordering(), thanks.  :) Sounds good to me. (And sorry for forgetting to justify that last message. I hate

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

| From: Ding Tianhong | Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 6:18 PM | | If no other more suggestion, I will send a new version and remove the | enable_pcie_relaxed_ordering(), thanks.  :) Sounds good to me. (And sorry for forgetting to justify that last message. I hate working with web-based

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

On 2017/7/13 8:52, Casey Leedom wrote: > Sorry again for the delay. This time at least partially caused by a > Chelsio-internal Customer Support request to simply disable Relaxed Ordering > entirely due to the performance issues with our 100Gb/s product and > relatively recent Intel Root

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

On 2017/7/13 8:52, Casey Leedom wrote: > Sorry again for the delay. This time at least partially caused by a > Chelsio-internal Customer Support request to simply disable Relaxed Ordering > entirely due to the performance issues with our 100Gb/s product and > relatively recent Intel Root

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

  Sorry again for the delay.  This time at least partially caused by a Chelsio-internal Customer Support request to simply disable Relaxed Ordering entirely due to the performance issues with our 100Gb/s product and relatively recent Intel Root Complexes. Our Customer Support people are tired

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

  Sorry again for the delay.  This time at least partially caused by a Chelsio-internal Customer Support request to simply disable Relaxed Ordering entirely due to the performance issues with our 100Gb/s product and relatively recent Intel Root Complexes. Our Customer Support people are tired

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

On 2017/7/11 8:01, Casey Leedom wrote: > > Hey Alexander, > > Okay, I understand your point regarding the "most likely scenario" being > TLPs directed upstream to the Root Complex. But I'd still like to make sure > that we have an agreed upon API/methodology for doing Peer-to-Peer with >

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

On 2017/7/11 8:01, Casey Leedom wrote: > > Hey Alexander, > > Okay, I understand your point regarding the "most likely scenario" being > TLPs directed upstream to the Root Complex. But I'd still like to make sure > that we have an agreed upon API/methodology for doing Peer-to-Peer with >

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Casey Leedom wrote: > > Hey Alexander, > > Okay, I understand your point regarding the "most likely scenario" being > TLPs directed upstream to the Root Complex. But I'd still like to make sure > that we have an agreed upon API/methodology

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Casey Leedom wrote: > > Hey Alexander, > > Okay, I understand your point regarding the "most likely scenario" being > TLPs directed upstream to the Root Complex. But I'd still like to make sure > that we have an agreed upon API/methodology for doing

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

Hey Alexander, Okay, I understand your point regarding the "most likely scenario" being TLPs directed upstream to the Root Complex. But I'd still like to make sure that we have an agreed upon API/methodology for doing Peer-to-Peer with Relaxed Ordering and no Relaxed Ordering to the Root

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

Hey Alexander, Okay, I understand your point regarding the "most likely scenario" being TLPs directed upstream to the Root Complex. But I'd still like to make sure that we have an agreed upon API/methodology for doing Peer-to-Peer with Relaxed Ordering and no Relaxed Ordering to the Root

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

Hi Casey: On 2017/7/8 10:04, Casey Leedom wrote: > Okay, thanks for the note Alexander.I'll have to look more closely > at > the patch on Monday and try it out on one of the targeted systems to verify > the semantics you describe. > All the modification is only clearing the device's

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

Hi Casey: On 2017/7/8 10:04, Casey Leedom wrote: > Okay, thanks for the note Alexander.I'll have to look more closely > at > the patch on Monday and try it out on one of the targeted systems to verify > the semantics you describe. > All the modification is only clearing the device's

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Casey Leedom wrote: > Okay, thanks for the note Alexander. I'll have to look more closely at > the patch on Monday and try it out on one of the targeted systems to verify > the semantics you describe. > > However, that said, there is no way

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Casey Leedom wrote: > Okay, thanks for the note Alexander. I'll have to look more closely at > the patch on Monday and try it out on one of the targeted systems to verify > the semantics you describe. > > However, that said, there is no way to tell a priori

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

Okay, thanks for the note Alexander. I'll have to look more closely at the patch on Monday and try it out on one of the targeted systems to verify the semantics you describe. However, that said, there is no way to tell a priori where a device will send TLPs. To simply assume that all TLPs

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

Okay, thanks for the note Alexander. I'll have to look more closely at the patch on Monday and try it out on one of the targeted systems to verify the semantics you describe. However, that said, there is no way to tell a priori where a device will send TLPs. To simply assume that all TLPs

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Casey Leedom wrote: > By the way, it ~seems~ like the patch set confuses the idea of the PCIe > Capability Device Control[Relaxed Ordering Enable] with the device's ability > to handle incoming TLPs with the Relaxed Ordering Attribute set.

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Casey Leedom wrote: > By the way, it ~seems~ like the patch set confuses the idea of the PCIe > Capability Device Control[Relaxed Ordering Enable] with the device's ability > to handle incoming TLPs with the Relaxed Ordering Attribute set. These are >

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

By the way, it ~seems~ like the patch set confuses the idea of the PCIe Capability Device Control[Relaxed Ordering Enable] with the device's ability to handle incoming TLPs with the Relaxed Ordering Attribute set. These are completely different things. The PCIe Capability Device

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

By the way, it ~seems~ like the patch set confuses the idea of the PCIe Capability Device Control[Relaxed Ordering Enable] with the device's ability to handle incoming TLPs with the Relaxed Ordering Attribute set. These are completely different things. The PCIe Capability Device

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

Hey Ding, Bjorn, Alexander, et.al., Sorry for the insane delay in getting to this and thanks especially to Ding for picking up the ball on this feature. I got side=-tracked into a multi-week rewrite of our Firmware/Host Driver Port Capabilities code, then to the recent Ethernet Plug-Fest at

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

Hey Ding, Bjorn, Alexander, et.al., Sorry for the insane delay in getting to this and thanks especially to Ding for picking up the ball on this feature. I got side=-tracked into a multi-week rewrite of our Firmware/Host Driver Port Capabilities code, then to the recent Ethernet Plug-Fest at

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

On 2017/7/7 1:17, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 08:58:51PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >> Hi Bjorn: >> >> Could you please give some feedback about this patchset, it looks like no >> more comments for more than a week, >> thanks. :) > > I was on vacation when you posted it,

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

On 2017/7/7 1:17, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 08:58:51PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >> Hi Bjorn: >> >> Could you please give some feedback about this patchset, it looks like no >> more comments for more than a week, >> thanks. :) > > I was on vacation when you posted it,

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 08:58:51PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: > Hi Bjorn: > > Could you please give some feedback about this patchset, it looks like no > more comments for more than a week, > thanks. :) I was on vacation when you posted it, but don't worry, it's still in the queue:

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 08:58:51PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: > Hi Bjorn: > > Could you please give some feedback about this patchset, it looks like no > more comments for more than a week, > thanks. :) I was on vacation when you posted it, but don't worry, it's still in the queue:

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

Hi Bjorn: Could you please give some feedback about this patchset, it looks like no more comments for more than a week, thanks. :) Ding On 2017/6/29 13:47, Ding Tianhong wrote: > ping > > On 2017/6/22 20:15, Ding Tianhong wrote: >> Some devices have problems with Transaction Layer Packets

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

Hi Bjorn: Could you please give some feedback about this patchset, it looks like no more comments for more than a week, thanks. :) Ding On 2017/6/29 13:47, Ding Tianhong wrote: > ping > > On 2017/6/22 20:15, Ding Tianhong wrote: >> Some devices have problems with Transaction Layer Packets

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

ping On 2017/6/22 20:15, Ding Tianhong wrote: > Some devices have problems with Transaction Layer Packets with the Relaxed > Ordering Attribute set. This patch set adds a new PCIe Device Flag, > PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING, a set of PCI Quirks to catch some known > devices with Relaxed

Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

ping On 2017/6/22 20:15, Ding Tianhong wrote: > Some devices have problems with Transaction Layer Packets with the Relaxed > Ordering Attribute set. This patch set adds a new PCIe Device Flag, > PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING, a set of PCI Quirks to catch some known > devices with Relaxed

[PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

Some devices have problems with Transaction Layer Packets with the Relaxed Ordering Attribute set. This patch set adds a new PCIe Device Flag, PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING, a set of PCI Quirks to catch some known devices with Relaxed Ordering issues, and a use of this new flag by the cxgb4

[PATCH v6 0/3] Add new PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING flag

Some devices have problems with Transaction Layer Packets with the Relaxed Ordering Attribute set. This patch set adds a new PCIe Device Flag, PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING, a set of PCI Quirks to catch some known devices with Relaxed Ordering issues, and a use of this new flag by the cxgb4