netdev - 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 9 Jul 2019 11:19:01 +0800
From:   AceLan Kao <acelan.kao@...onical.com>
To:     Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Cc:     Realtek linux nic maintainers <nic_swsd@...ltek.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        "Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] r8169: add enable_aspm parameter

Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com> 於 2019年7月9日 週二 上午2:27寫道：
>
> 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
Cool, I'll try your patches and reply on that thread.

>
> 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.
I should use more specific wordings rather than "important for
production", thanks.