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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <eb0b15c5-a7e0-4144-b5f8-a8e1818b1d9f@quicinc.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Dec 2023 15:30:02 +0530
From:   Pavan Kondeti <quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com>
To:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>
CC:     Nitin Rawat <quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        Naresh Maramaina <quic_mnaresh@...cinc.com>,
        "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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] ufs: core: Add CPU latency QoS support for ufs
 driver

On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 04:51:01PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 03:56:43PM +0530, Nitin Rawat wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 12/7/2023 3:13 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 03:02:04PM -1000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Agree. The flag shouldn't be introduced if there are no users.
> > > 
> > > > > 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.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Hmm, ok. Then I think we can have a sysfs hook to toggle the enable switch.
> > 
> > Hi Bart, Mani
> > 
> > How about keeping this feature enabled by default and having a module
> > parameter to disable pmqos feature if required ?
> > 
> 
> Module params not encouraged these days unless there are no other feasible
> options available.

Yeah, one of the problem with module param is that we can't have
different settings for two two UFS controllers. Anyways, this setting
need not be a module param, there is nothing special about this setting
that is tied to module loading (driver probe) time, AFAICT.

Thanks,
Pavan