linux-kernel - Re: Report long suspend times of NVMe devices (mostly firmware/device issues)

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]

Message-ID: <fd0eb2c3-56c3-0e81-cfba-1ffa6a872efd@molgen.mpg.de>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jan 2018 23:29:12 +0100
From:   Paul Menzel <pmenzel+linux-nvme@...gen.mpg.de>
To:     Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Report long suspend times of NVMe devices (mostly firmware/device
 issues)

Dear Keith,


Thank you for your reply.

Am 22.01.2018 um 22:30 schrieb Keith Busch:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:02:12PM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote:

>> Benchmarking the ACPI S3 suspend and resume times with `sleepgraph.py
>> -config config/suspend-callgraph.cfg` [1], shows that the NVMe disk SAMSUNG
>> MZVKW512HMJP-00000 in the TUXEDO Book BU1406 takes between 0.3 and 1.4
>> seconds, holding up the suspend cycle.
>>
>> The time is spent in `nvme_shutdown_ctrl()`.
>>
>> ### Linux 4.14.1-041401-generic
>>
>>> nvme @ 0000:04:00.0 {nvme} async_device (Total Suspend: 1439.299 ms Total Resume: 19.865 ms)
>>
>> ### Linux 4.15-rc9
>>
>>> nvme @ 0000:04:00.0 {nvme} async_device (Total Suspend: 362.239 ms Total Resume: 19.897 m
>> It’d be useful, if the Linux kernel logged such issues visibly to the user,
>> so that the hardware manufacturer can be contacted to fix the device
>> (probably the firmware).
>>
>> In my opinion anything longer than 200 ms should be reported similar to [2],
>> and maybe worded like below.
>>
>>> NVMe took more than 200 ms to do suspend routine
>>
>> What do you think?
> 
> The nvme spec guides toward longer times than that. I don't see the
> point of warning users about things operating within spec.

I quickly glanced over NVM Express revision 1.3 specification [1] but 
searching for *second *, I could not find something about this. Could 
you please point me to the section?

In my opinion, it’s a good thing to point users to devices holding up 
suspend.


Kind regards,

Paul


[1] https://nvmexpress.org/wp-content/uploads/NVM_Express_Revision_1.3.pdf