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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 11:11:19 -0700 From: J Freyensee <james_p_freyensee@...ux.intel.com> To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> Cc: Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] nvme: Enable autonomous power state transitions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + /* > > > > + * By default, allow up to 25ms of APST-induced > > > > latency. This will > > > > + * have no effect on non-APST supporting controllers > > > > (i.e. > > > > any > > > > + * controller with APSTA == 0). > > > > + */ > > > > + ctrl->apst_max_latency_ns = 25000000; > > > > > > Is it possible to make that a #define please? > > > > I'll make it a module parameter as Keith suggested. > > One question, though: should we call this and the sysfs parameter > apst_max_latency or should it be more generically > power_save_max_latency? The idea is that we might want to support > non-automonous transitions some day or even runtime D3. Or maybe > those should be separately configured if used. I read the spec and reviewed your latest patchset. Personally for me I like having the field names from the NVMe spec in the names of the Linux implementation because it makes it easier to find and relate the two. So apst_max_latency makes more sense to me, as this is a 'apst'(e/a) NVMe feature. > > --Andy > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-nvme mailing list > Linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvme
Powered by blists - more mailing lists