From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@kernel.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: Naresh Maramaina <quic_mnaresh@quicinc.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
Peter Wang <peter.wang@mediatek.com>,
Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>,
chu.stanley@gmail.com, Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, quic_cang@quicinc.com,
quic_nguyenb@quicinc.com, Nitin Rawat <quic_nitirawa@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] ufs: core: Add CPU latency QoS support for ufs driver
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2023 15:13:57 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231207094357.GI2932@thinkpad> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <effb603e-ca7a-4f24-9783-4d62790165ae@acm.org>
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 03:02:04PM -1000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 12/6/23 05:32, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 07:32:54PM +0530, Naresh Maramaina wrote:
> > > On 12/5/2023 10:41 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > > On 12/4/23 21:58, Naresh Maramaina wrote:
> > > > > On 12/5/2023 12:30 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > > > > On 12/4/23 06:30, Maramaina Naresh wrote:
> > > > > > > + /* This capability allows the host controller driver to
> > > > > > > use the PM QoS
> > > > > > > + * feature.
> > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > + UFSHCD_CAP_PM_QOS = 1 << 13,
> > > > > > > };
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why does it depend on the host driver whether or not PM QoS is
> > > > > > enabled? Why isn't it enabled unconditionally?
> > > > >
> > > > > For some platform vendors power KPI might be more important than
> > > > > random io KPI. Hence this flag is disabled by default and can be
> > > > > enabled based on platform requirement.
> > > >
> > > > How about leaving this flag out unless if a host vendor asks explicitly
> > > > for this flag?
> > >
> > > IMHO, instead of completely removing this flag, how about having
> > > flag like "UFSHCD_CAP_DISABLE_PM_QOS" which will make PMQOS enable
> > > by default and if some host vendor wants to disable it explicitly,
> > > they can enable that flag.
> > > Please let me know your opinion.
>
> That would result in a flag that is tested but that is never set by
> upstream code. I'm not sure that's acceptable.
>
Agree. The flag shouldn't be introduced if there are no users.
> > If a vendor wants to disable this feature, then the driver has to be modified.
> > That won't be very convenient. So either this has to be configured through sysfs
> > or Kconfig if flexibility matters.
>
> Kconfig sounds worse to me because changing any Kconfig flag requires a
> modification of the Android GKI kernel.
>
Hmm, ok. Then I think we can have a sysfs hook to toggle the enable switch.
- Mani
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-12-07 9:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-12-04 14:30 [PATCH V2 0/3] Add CPU latency QoS support for ufs driver Maramaina Naresh
2023-12-04 14:30 ` [PATCH V2 1/3] ufs: core: " Maramaina Naresh
2023-12-04 19:00 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-12-05 5:58 ` Naresh Maramaina
2023-12-05 17:11 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-12-06 14:02 ` Naresh Maramaina
2023-12-06 15:32 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2023-12-07 1:02 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-12-07 9:43 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam [this message]
2023-12-07 10:26 ` Nitin Rawat
2023-12-07 11:21 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2023-12-11 10:00 ` Pavan Kondeti
2023-12-06 15:26 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2023-12-07 11:26 ` Naresh Maramaina
2023-12-11 9:56 ` Naresh Maramaina
2023-12-04 14:31 ` [PATCH V2 2/3] ufs: ufs-mediatek: Enable CPU latency PM QoS support for MEDIATEK SoC Maramaina Naresh
2023-12-04 14:31 ` [PATCH V2 3/3] ufs: ufs-qcom: Enable CPU latency QoS support for QCOM SoC Maramaina Naresh
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=20231207094357.GI2932@thinkpad \
--to=mani@kernel.org \
--cc=agross@kernel.org \
--cc=alim.akhtar@samsung.com \
--cc=andersson@kernel.org \
--cc=angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com \
--cc=avri.altman@wdc.com \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=chu.stanley@gmail.com \
--cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=konrad.dybcio@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=matthias.bgg@gmail.com \
--cc=peter.wang@mediatek.com \
--cc=quic_cang@quicinc.com \
--cc=quic_mnaresh@quicinc.com \
--cc=quic_nguyenb@quicinc.com \
--cc=quic_nitirawa@quicinc.com \
/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