From: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@kernel.org>
Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@meta.com>,
bhelgaas@google.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com, lukas@wunner.de
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] pci: allow user specifiy a reset poll timeout
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 10:40:10 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aEmxanDmx6f_5aZX@kbusch-mbp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <zqtfb77zu3x4w5ilbmaqsnvocisfknkptj4yuz64lu3rza5vub@fmalvswla7c5>
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 09:58:59PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 06:11:44PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 08:54:44AM -0800, Keith Busch wrote:
> > > From: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
> > >
> > > The spec does not provide any upper limit to how long a device may
> > > return Request Retry Status. It just says "Some devices require a
> > > lengthy self-initialization sequence to complete". The kernel
> > > arbitrarily chose 60 seconds since that really ought to be enough. But
> > > there are devices where this turns out not to be enough.
> > >
> > > Since any timeout choice would be arbitrary, and 60 seconds is generally
> > > more than enough for the majority of hardware, let's make this a
> > > parameter so an admin can adjust it specifically to their needs if the
> > > default timeout isn't appropriate.
> >
> > This patch is trying to address timings that have no spec defined
> > behavior, so making it user tunable sounds just more reasonable than a
> > kernel define. If we're not considering upstream options to make this
> > tunable, I think we have no choice but to continue with bespoke
> > out-of-tree solutions.
>
> Do we know the list of devices exhibiting this pattern? And does the time limit
> is deterministic? I'm just trying to see if it is possible to add quirks for
> those devices.
No. I'm dealing with new devices being actively developed, with new ones
coming out every year, so a quirk list would just be never ending
maintenance pain point. The fact I can't point them to off-the-shelf
kernels to test with has been frustrating for everyone. If we just had a
user defined option instead of forcing the kernel's arbitrary choice,
then the problem is solved once and forever.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-11 16:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-18 16:54 [PATCHv2] pci: allow user specifiy a reset poll timeout Keith Busch
2025-04-15 0:11 ` Keith Busch
2025-06-11 16:28 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2025-06-11 16:40 ` Keith Busch [this message]
2025-06-11 17:11 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2025-06-11 17:17 ` Keith Busch
2025-06-12 8:06 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2025-06-23 17:51 ` Keith Busch
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aEmxanDmx6f_5aZX@kbusch-mbp \
--to=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kbusch@meta.com \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukas@wunner.de \
--cc=mani@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.