lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH v5 05/14] PCI: Add pcie_print_link_status() to log link speed and whether it's limited
Date


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bjorn Helgaas [mailto:helgaas@kernel.org]
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 7:07 AM
> To: Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@wp.pl>
> Cc: Tal Gilboa <talgi@mellanox.com>; Tariq Toukan <tariqt@mellanox.com>;
> Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>; Ariel Elior <ariel.elior@cavium.com>;
> Ganesh Goudar <ganeshgr@chelsio.com>; Kirsher, Jeffrey T
> <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>; everest-linux-l2@cavium.com; intel-wired-
> lan@lists.osuosl.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/14] PCI: Add pcie_print_link_status() to log link speed
> and whether it's limited
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 09:32:49PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 16:05:18 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > + if (bw_avail >= bw_cap)
> > > + pci_info(dev, "%d Mb/s available bandwidth (%s x%d link)\n",
> > > + bw_cap, PCIE_SPEED2STR(speed_cap), width_cap);
> > > + else
> > > + pci_info(dev, "%d Mb/s available bandwidth, limited by %s x%d
> link at %s (capable of %d Mb/s with %s x%d link)\n",
> > > + bw_avail, PCIE_SPEED2STR(speed), width,
> > > + limiting_dev ? pci_name(limiting_dev) : "<unknown>",
> > > + bw_cap, PCIE_SPEED2STR(speed_cap), width_cap);
> >
> > I was just looking at using this new function to print PCIe BW for a
> > NIC, but I'm slightly worried that there is nothing in the message that
> > says PCIe... For a NIC some people may interpret the bandwidth as NIC
> > bandwidth:
> >
> > [ 39.839989] nfp 0000:04:00.0: Netronome Flow Processor NFP4000/NFP6000
> PCIe Card Probe
> > [ 39.848943] nfp 0000:04:00.0: 63.008 Gb/s available bandwidth (8 GT/s x8 link)
> > [ 39.857146] nfp 0000:04:00.0: RESERVED BARs: 0.0: General/MSI-X SRAM, 0.1:
> PCIe XPB/MSI-X PBA, 0.4: Explicit0, 0.5: Explicit1, fre4
> >
> > It's not a 63Gbps NIC... I'm sorry if this was discussed before and I
> > didn't find it. Would it make sense to add the "PCIe: " prefix to the
> > message like bnx2x used to do? Like:
> >
> > nfp 0000:04:00.0: PCIe: 63.008 Gb/s available bandwidth (8 GT/s x8 link)
>
> I agree, that does look potentially confusing. How about this:
>
> nfp 0000:04:00.0: 63.008 Gb/s available PCIe bandwidth (8 GT/s x8 link)
>
> I did have to look twice at this before I remembered that we're
> printing Gb/s (not GB/s). Most of the references I found on the web
> use GB/s when talking about total PCIe bandwidth.
>
> But either way I think it's definitely worth mentioning PCIe
> explicitly.

I also agree printing PCIe explicitly is good.

Thanks,
Jake

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-13 17:35    [W:0.088 / U:0.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site