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 CA057C43458 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2026 15:07:51 +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:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=yTqn+FQc94UqRkLSVubEtUVfaHcm4lXfPasCJVUGVKo=; b=s30FIbYKqjmnd/sPa62nHJhMad iUO2b7Vc534+E//+3jJx4iHRSGWcEUxrKHciJu7BCYWGlexVVQUxoXwShlqBAWW7uwWluBLqdXUfq V5kp5aAbcgYiigyWEJhMbg6R2/AUf0joav/mSYy4y3Z6usxiEUPkOpPU4gfHdx5M9IVwPK5JTcZyK +yZ6BS+eycfrfHPDYPZH7/bXjHaeli/V2BPRyyZEYyNpZnI01AjV27Et65wpVc++SCw0Al8CNmlDa c7mcNMJYkoUuc2IldP3YyV9kSe3XxHQ3NnIS+eZIaa5UU/JKehxVknj91+4uZI6UDjBM+NtEGBpfd uzoqJa9g==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1whqLu-00000002sEU-2utR; Thu, 09 Jul 2026 15:07:50 +0000 Received: from sea.source.kernel.org ([2600:3c0a:e001:78e:0:1991:8:25]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1whqLs-00000002sE8-2ldK for linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2026 15:07:48 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) by sea.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1394C433BD; Thu, 9 Jul 2026 15:07:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A26821F000E9; Thu, 9 Jul 2026 15:07:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1783609668; bh=yTqn+FQc94UqRkLSVubEtUVfaHcm4lXfPasCJVUGVKo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=ML2RwY0eLHZcTWolvsKHLe8E0onmSPnz/9IHRLzQtzwU9nkUEYP2MzeP+XaiC/YZt +tbEZvnsyV37SCA2pVfEXqWAQQxbnTGmKmjyrrxubcBPoQhzXgs5Td73fM/MAPWiml Qr/C8k8TgKP26A6t3gDdSVMeCl0U4X08m1q/J3GlFtn041/I5leQa3ebgG1TK45Dmg 1dTCNPcMQrzhinxNo6IUoGCOYaxQcLW3Il9lpPI8KrwKgJ1ZB5vdUEAOiwJK2KkgZA CfG1SN2mCSuikK9AQ+foDqhoeNgEudQewmapmhfUsYSYzD46Sei2JXR/HfEjX/JlqS 0aEV4mfWLIWrg== Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2026 09:07:46 -0600 From: Keith Busch To: guzebing Cc: Christoph Hellwig , axboe@kernel.dk, sagi@grimberg.me, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Guzebing Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme: make firmware activation poll interval configurable Message-ID: References: <20260627010610.47768-1-guzebing1612@gmail.com> <20260709064233.GA18381@lst.de> <7ae65361-f601-4fd9-8eac-5dfb9f6bb7ea@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7ae65361-f601-4fd9-8eac-5dfb9f6bb7ea@gmail.com> 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 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?