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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox