NVMe APST high latency power states being skipped

[Mario.Limonciello@dell.com (Mario.Limonciello@dell.com)]

> > There are some configurations that have multiple NVMe disks.
> > For example the Precision 7520 can have up to 3.
> >
> > NVME Identify Controller:
> ...
> > mn      : A400 NVMe SanDisk 512GB
> ...
> > ps    0 : mp:8.25W operational enlat:0 exlat:0 rrt:0 rrl:0
> >           rwt:0 rwl:0 idle_power:- active_power:5.30W
> > ps    1 : mp:8.25W operational enlat:0 exlat:0 rrt:1 rrl:1
> >           rwt:1 rwl:1 idle_power:- active_power:3.30W
> > ps    2 : mp:8.25W operational enlat:0 exlat:0 rrt:2 rrl:2
> >           rwt:2 rwl:2 idle_power:- active_power:3.30W
> > ps    3 : mp:0.0500W non-operational enlat:51000 exlat:10000 rrt:0 rrl:0
> >           rwt:0 rwl:0 idle_power:- active_power:-
> > ps    4 : mp:0.0055W non-operational enlat:1000000 exlat:100000 rrt:0 rrl:0
> >           rwt:0 rwl:0 idle_power:- active_power:-
> >
> 
> 44.5mW saved and totally crazy latency.
> 
> >
> > NVME Identify Controller:
> ...
> > mn      : THNSF5512GPUK NVMe SED TOSHIBA 512GB
> ...
> > ps    0 : mp:6.00W operational enlat:0 exlat:0 rrt:0 rrl:0
> >           rwt:0 rwl:0 idle_power:- active_power:-
> > ps    1 : mp:2.40W operational enlat:0 exlat:0 rrt:1 rrl:1
> >           rwt:1 rwl:1 idle_power:- active_power:-
> > ps    2 : mp:1.90W operational enlat:0 exlat:0 rrt:2 rrl:2
> >           rwt:2 rwl:2 idle_power:- active_power:-
> > ps    3 : mp:0.0120W non-operational enlat:5000 exlat:25000 rrt:3 rrl:3
> >           rwt:3 rwl:3 idle_power:- active_power:-
> > ps    4 : mp:0.0060W non-operational enlat:100000 exlat:70000 rrt:4 rrl:4
> >           rwt:4 rwl:4 idle_power:- active_power:-
> 
> 6 mW saved and still fairly crazy latency.  70ms means you drop a couple frames.
> 
> >
> >
> > NVME Identify Controller:
> ...
> > mn      : CX2-GB1024-Q11 NVMe LITEON 1024GB
> ...> ps    0 : mp:8.00W operational enlat:0 exlat:0 rrt:0 rrl:0
> >           rwt:0 rwl:0 idle_power:- active_power:-
> > ps    1 : mp:4.00W operational enlat:5 exlat:5 rrt:1 rrl:1
> >           rwt:1 rwl:1 idle_power:- active_power:-
> > ps    2 : mp:2.10W operational enlat:5 exlat:5 rrt:2 rrl:2
> >           rwt:2 rwl:2 idle_power:- active_power:-
> > ps    3 : mp:0.1000W non-operational enlat:5000 exlat:5000 rrt:3 rrl:3
> >           rwt:3 rwl:3 idle_power:- active_power:-
> > ps    4 : mp:0.0100W non-operational enlat:50000 exlat:100000 rrt:4 rrl:4
> >           rwt:4 rwl:4 idle_power:- active_power:-
> 
> 90mW saved and still 100ms latency.  Also, I didn't know that Lite-on
> made disks.

Well so the important one here I think is jumping down to PS3.  That's a much bigger
drop in power across all of these disks.  The Liteon one will obviously go into PS3
in the current patch, but the other two are just going to be vampires.

> 
> I'm not convinced that there's any chassis type for which this type of
> default makes sense.
> 
I guess I'm wondering where you came up with 25000 as the default:
+static unsigned long default_ps_max_latency_us = 25000;

Was it based across results of testing a bunch of disks, or from 
experimentation with a few higher end SSDs?

> What would perhaps make sense is to have system-wide
> performance-vs-power controls and to integrate NVMe power saving into
> it, presumably through the pm_qos framework.  Or to export more
> information to userspace and have a user tool that sets all this up
> generically.

So I think you're already doing this.  power/pm_qos_latency_tolerance_us
and the module parameter default_ps_max_latency_us can effectively
change it.

Kai Heng can comment more on the testing they've done and the performance
impact, but I understand that by tweaking those knobs they've been able to
get all these disks into at least PS3 and saved a lot of power.

We could go work with the TLP project  or power top guys and have them 
go and tweak the various sysfs knobs to make more of these disks work, 
but I would rather the kernel had good defaults across this collection of disks.