linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] ufs: core: Add CPU latency QoS support for ufs driver

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:   Wed, 6 Dec 2023 15:02:04 -1000
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>,
        Naresh Maramaina <quic_mnaresh@...cinc.com>
Cc:     "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Peter Wang <peter.wang@...iatek.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>, chu.stanley@...il.com,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, quic_cang@...cinc.com,
        quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com, Nitin Rawat <quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] ufs: core: Add CPU latency QoS support for ufs
 driver

On 12/6/23 05:32, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 07:32:54PM +0530, Naresh Maramaina wrote:
>> On 12/5/2023 10:41 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> On 12/4/23 21:58, Naresh Maramaina wrote:
>>>> On 12/5/2023 12:30 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>>>> On 12/4/23 06:30, Maramaina Naresh wrote:
>>>>>> +    /* This capability allows the host controller driver to
>>>>>> use the PM QoS
>>>>>> +     * feature.
>>>>>> +     */
>>>>>> +    UFSHCD_CAP_PM_QOS                = 1 << 13,
>>>>>>    };
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does it depend on the host driver whether or not PM QoS is
>>>>> enabled? Why isn't it enabled unconditionally?
>>>>
>>>> For some platform vendors power KPI might be more important than
>>>> random io KPI. Hence this flag is disabled by default and can be
>>>> enabled based on platform requirement.
>>>
>>> How about leaving this flag out unless if a host vendor asks explicitly
>>> for this flag?
>>
>> IMHO, instead of completely removing this flag, how about having
>> flag like "UFSHCD_CAP_DISABLE_PM_QOS" which will make PMQOS enable
>> by default and if some host vendor wants to disable it explicitly,
>> they can enable that flag.
>> Please let me know your opinion.

That would result in a flag that is tested but that is never set by
upstream code. I'm not sure that's acceptable.

> If a vendor wants to disable this feature, then the driver has to be modified.
> That won't be very convenient. So either this has to be configured through sysfs
> or Kconfig if flexibility matters.

Kconfig sounds worse to me because changing any Kconfig flag requires a
modification of the Android GKI kernel.

Thanks,

Bart.