linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] r8169: add enable

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: <53f82481-ed41-abc5-2e4e-ac1026617219@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Jul 2019 20:27:25 +0200
From:   Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To:     AceLan Kao <acelan.kao@...onical.com>,
        Realtek linux nic maintainers <nic_swsd@...ltek.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] r8169: add enable_aspm parameter

On 08.07.2019 08:37, AceLan Kao wrote:
> We have many commits in the driver which enable and then disable ASPM
> function over and over again.
>    commit b75bb8a5b755 ("r8169: disable ASPM again")
>    commit 0866cd15029b ("r8169: enable ASPM on RTL8106E")
>    commit 94235460f9ea ("r8169: Align ASPM/CLKREQ setting function with vendor driver")
>    commit aa1e7d2c31ef ("r8169: enable ASPM on RTL8168E-VL")
>    commit f37658da21aa ("r8169: align ASPM entry latency setting with vendor driver")
>    commit a99790bf5c7f ("r8169: Reinstate ASPM Support")
>    commit 671646c151d4 ("r8169: Don't disable ASPM in the driver")
>    commit 4521e1a94279 ("Revert "r8169: enable internal ASPM and clock request settings".")
>    commit d64ec841517a ("r8169: enable internal ASPM and clock request settings")
> 
> This function is very important for production, and if we can't come out
> a solution to make both happy, I'd suggest we add a parameter in the
> driver to toggle it.
> 
The usage of a module parameter to control ASPM is discouraged.
There have been more such attempts in the past that have been declined.

Pending with the PCI maintainers is a series adding ASPM control
via sysfs, see here: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pci/msg83228.html

Also more details than just stating "it's important for production"
would have been appreciated in the commit message, e.g. which
power-savings you can achieve with ASPM on which systems.