From: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
To: guzebing <guzebing1612@gmail.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
axboe@kernel.dk, sagi@grimberg.me,
linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Guzebing <guzebing@bytedance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme: make firmware activation poll interval configurable
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2026 09:07:46 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ak-5QnI_lc-EwcNU@kbusch-mbp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7ae65361-f601-4fd9-8eac-5dfb9f6bb7ea@gmail.com>
On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 05:06:11PM +0800, guzebing wrote:
> The Samsung PM9D3a Gen5 SSD reports MTFA = 10, i.e. 1000 ms.
>
> I also checked another device, an Intel/Solidigm P5520 Gen4 drive. It
> reports MTFA = 100, i.e. 10000 ms, while the observed online activation
> time is about 800 ms.
>
> I agree that deriving the polling interval from MTFA would be better
> than adding a module parameter. Given that MTFA is a conservative upper
> bound rather than a good estimate of the common activation time, would
> using a small fraction of it, for example MTFA / 100 clamped to 10..100
> ms, be a reasonable policy for v2?
>
> That would give 10 ms for the PM9D3a device above, while keeping the
> current 100 ms interval for the P5520 case and for large-MTFA devices.
nvme_wait_ready() has a similar polling loop on the csts register, but
it does a udelay_range for 1-2 msecs no matter what the ready timeout
is. Maybe just do the same for consistency?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-09 15:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-27 1:06 [PATCH] nvme: make firmware activation poll interval configurable guzebing
2026-07-06 6:33 ` guzebing
2026-07-09 6:42 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-07-09 9:06 ` guzebing
2026-07-09 15:07 ` Keith Busch [this message]
2026-07-10 9:20 ` guzebing
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=ak-5QnI_lc-EwcNU@kbusch-mbp \
--to=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=guzebing1612@gmail.com \
--cc=guzebing@bytedance.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox