linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] block: CPU latency PM QoS tuning

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: <b675fa9573c3a2b0f51054a692975b69f8f8bd5e.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2024 14:35:40 +0300
From: Tero Kristo <tero.kristo@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, axboe@...nel.dk
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] block: CPU latency PM QoS tuning

On Thu, 2024-08-29 at 07:04 -0400, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 8/29/24 3:18 AM, Tero Kristo wrote:
> > Any thoughts about the patches and the approach taken?
> 
> The optimal value for the PM QoS latency depends on the request size
> and on the storage device characteristics. I think it would be better
> if the latency value would be chosen automatically rather than
> introducing yet another set of tunable sysfs parameters.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.
> 

Hi all,

Based on the feedback received, I've updated my patch to work on the
NVMe driver level instead of block layer. I'll send that to the
corresponding list as a separate RFC, but for now these two patches can
be ignored.

-Tero