From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 663BCC6FD1F for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 15:14:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=VTZDTry4iLRYYk7znZMyIwOmtb4mpRhpVQzIYKZgUBM=; b=1G4h0m2YMc04WUS5dmzxA2CZlU Tb1EDMMK2qNVupJ4OEqD14Rxx9NPfUts6+XmP6oLsdDdEuoG2Km6VpsiX0mmfnv584JO+2XSDFrUC Vf5euESqBAasCZ3+fF0SkJUjncpBlYIT4kZdPfKOvNP9rTPt9lnNXdEvhp/tqn4d358oqmzj1WAwZ LVLtAfwh904gEIT7Wtb0K6cjwTH14efSrBj/APwfDMhzAo7udEayoMSPVt0TI2GJWBVgL7FO1H8oZ +Gi128MrEF4VQVD5Q8URvPoPBRtbYZSK7sq7mQKngaFUPPWnCCwoFf2bao86lWBrOyMTF9oqUdvT6 XkgZjQvg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rrfpp-0000000BldQ-0UUo; Tue, 02 Apr 2024 15:14:01 +0000 Received: from mail.tuxedocomputers.com ([157.90.84.7]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rrfpl-0000000BlaU-0UHI for linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 02 Apr 2024 15:13:59 +0000 Received: from [192.168.175.29] (host-88-217-226-44.customer.m-online.net [88.217.226.44]) (Authenticated sender: g.gottleuber@tuxedocomputers.com) by mail.tuxedocomputers.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 55A6F2FC0052; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 17:13:49 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tuxedocomputers.com; s=default; t=1712070829; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=VTZDTry4iLRYYk7znZMyIwOmtb4mpRhpVQzIYKZgUBM=; b=Kj2In7m7Cv9V3hoWpJUxThUI0AEr+NmsjEaGwl/dI+e3fkN6KMCa4TLYXPD9IawmNsWrnO QoM72gDZkYsEyfcDvgeOHzeHEzH+6sGgQx6oIjGFzDU6QXljCkyZ4Ge5r3Ff07lVNrMz3Y N5e8YBUAmUZhvvuw+ax5yK4HORBLh18= Authentication-Results: mail.tuxedocomputers.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=g.gottleuber@tuxedocomputers.com smtp.mailfrom=g.gottleuber@tuxedocomputers.com Message-ID: <230e3f41-9f6b-42fd-a411-567abbaebbbe@tuxedocomputers.com> Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 17:13:48 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme-pci: Add sleep quirk for Samsung 990 Evo To: Christoph Hellwig , Werner Sembach Cc: Keith Busch , Jens Axboe , Sagi Grimberg , Georg Gottleuber , linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20240328130923.61752-1-wse@tuxedocomputers.com> <20240402131658.GA31963@lst.de> Content-Language: en-US From: Georg Gottleuber In-Reply-To: <20240402131658.GA31963@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20240402_081357_793476_34A818A5 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 11.48 ) X-BeenThere: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "Linux-nvme" Errors-To: linux-nvme-bounces+linux-nvme=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Am 02.04.24 um 15:16 schrieb Christoph Hellwig: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 02:09:22PM +0100, Werner Sembach wrote: >> From: Georg Gottleuber >> >> On some TUXEDO platforms, a Samsung 990 Evo NVMe leads to a high >> power consumption in s2idle sleep (2-3 watts). >> >> This patch applies 'Force No Simple Suspend' quirk to achieve a >> sleep with a lower power consumption, typically around 0.5 watts. > > Does this only apply to a specific SSD or all SSDs on this platform? > How do these platforms even get into the conditional? Probably > through acpi_storage_d3 setting, which probably is set incorrectly > for the platform? Any chance to just fix that? Yes, this only apply to a specific SSD. I tested these SSDs (on PH4PRX1_PH6PRX1): * Kingston NV1, SNVS250G * Samsung 980, MZ-V8V500 * Samsung 970 Evo, S46DNX0K900454D * Samsung 980 Pro, S69ENX0T709932L S2idle consumes around 0.4 watts with these SSDs. But with a Samsung 990 Evo s2idle on this platform consumes 3.7 to 4.4 watts (6.8 vs 6.5 kernel). With my quirk s2idle sleep consumption is at the same level of all other SSDs tested. Other boards have different values (a bit less drastic: factor 3 to 8). All measurements were taken with the battery disconnected and a modified adapter plug. Because of the isolated problems with this SSD I have not debugged acpi_storage_d3. Do you think that would make sense? Kind regards, Georg Gottleuber