linux-kernel - Re: SATA powersave patches

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:05:48 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc:	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, axboe@...e.de
Subject: Re: SATA powersave patches

Hi!

> >Thanks... I got it to work (on 2 the old tree, I was not able to
> >forward-port it), but power savings were not too big (~0.1W, maybe).
> >
> >I'm getting huge (~1W) savings by powering down SATA controller, as in
> >ahci_pci_device_suspend().
> 
> Yeah, it only turns off SATA PHY, so it doesn't result in huge saving. 
> IIRC, it was somewhere around 5 percent on my notebook w/ static 
> linksave mode (turning PHY off on empty port).  But link powersaving 
> introduces virtually no recognizable delay, so it's nice to have.

Yes, any powersavings without cost are a good idea. 

> Can you check if there is any difference between [D/H]IPS and static? 
> ICH6M on my notebook can't do DIPS/HIPS, so I couldn't compare them 
> against static.

What is D/HIPS? I could not find anything relevant..

> >It would be great to be able to power SATA
> >controller down, then power it back up when it is needed... I tried
> >following hack, but could not get it to work. Any ideas?
> 
> 1. One way to do it would be by dynamic power management.  It would be 
> nice to have wake-up mechanism at the block layer.  Idle timer can run 
> in the block layer or it can be implemented in the userland.
> 
> ATM, this implies that the attached devices are powered down too 
> (spindown).  As spinning up takes quite some time, we can implement 

For now, powering down controller when disks are spinned down would be
very nice first step.

When I forced disk to be spinned down (with power/state file)
controller actually survived power down/power up... unfortunately with
so long delay (~30 sec) that it is not usable in practice.

> So, I think option #1 is the way to go - implementing leveled dynamic 
> power management infrastructure and adding support in the block layer. 
> What do you think?

Would be nice :-).
								Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/