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

From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@kernel.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: Naresh Maramaina <quic_mnaresh@quicinc.com>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	Peter Wang <peter.wang@mediatek.com>,
	Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
	<angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>,
	chu.stanley@gmail.com, Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
	Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, quic_cang@quicinc.com,
	quic_nguyenb@quicinc.com, Nitin Rawat <quic_nitirawa@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] ufs: core: Add CPU latency QoS support for ufs driver
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2023 15:13:57 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231207094357.GI2932@thinkpad> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <effb603e-ca7a-4f24-9783-4d62790165ae@acm.org>

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.

- Mani

> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.

-- 
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்