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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4043C32750 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 10:56:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 789FB206A3 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 10:56:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2391556AbfHBKz7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Aug 2019 06:55:59 -0400 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:50027 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2390228AbfHBKz7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Aug 2019 06:55:59 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-f200.google.com ([209.85.210.200]) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1htVE4-0003x7-Gh for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2019 10:55:56 +0000 Received: by mail-pf1-f200.google.com with SMTP id 191so47977211pfy.20 for ; Fri, 02 Aug 2019 03:55:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=1MPznmuXeG7wCRYVL9MHILhgoOzlyVy2wYj+zJGGdEc=; b=HDU6RB2BSXOJCQClmUKRIuipWxVsEQBIzQ+x/B6AU4B9pYqrz1N3JQnb82swkxl0Xq +aCyICng/qdNEh4gNbw3xJ+SY5XDEYuxU18wxMAZ5ucootRpbs6Q80IZMdIlNOh47WF0 poxKSU03q6geskCBjPQ7QhjYPGjs1zpQta04CxM54kjlHufyMZnGyMxl8H55/WnEBaG/ KLmbYP4NMTjcfcJKFNxc/wOBXvUPBGTO24qXDuvekCVfPBXJAbP9RzfByd4ry52IyYKL Jck0Khmsd8uf/BGy4PET4X9HF2z0quFdFqkLgnWyEn/4RNO0bbzXKIbP5uOzsEJJaR61 iWFA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXGvj/Cpwq4tqfazmxxIx6wq3pViEQSPIsJrAxRunpBn3ZoHRxZ 7JhmVV34tGVt4ZseFktpzAJs74o+qyODOYK9U/7MtvZVIHxBPVgvtMmDjuUmd5LPIw88rjc7cUe Uxm3JLIJDb4/UHTmF0DcRKBVmFsYzP1M1bEjTVOeCaA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b415:: with SMTP id x21mr46500528plr.287.1564743355154; Fri, 02 Aug 2019 03:55:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz40WleeKjga141ojL+U69MyrTCqdDvHMDjXpmuv2NM4hZXbSrFoVIxplxH0ns0fxO+M+bimQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b415:: with SMTP id x21mr46500507plr.287.1564743354817; Fri, 02 Aug 2019 03:55:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 2001-b011-380f-37d3-19b3-1f99-e436-6e66.dynamic-ip6.hinet.net (2001-b011-380f-37d3-19b3-1f99-e436-6e66.dynamic-ip6.hinet.net. [2001:b011:380f:37d3:19b3:1f99:e436:6e66]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j5sm89942159pfi.104.2019.08.02.03.55.52 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Aug 2019 03:55:54 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; delsp=yes; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) Subject: Re: [Regression] Commit "nvme/pci: Use host managed power state for suspend" has problems From: Kai-Heng Feng In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 18:55:51 +0800 Cc: Mario Limonciello , Keith Busch , Keith Busch , Christoph Hellwig , Sagi Grimberg , linux-nvme , Linux PM , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Rajat Jain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <43A8DF53-8463-4314-9E8E-47A7D3C5A709@canonical.com> References: <4323ed84dd07474eab65699b4d007aaf@AUSX13MPC105.AMER.DELL.COM> <47415939.KV5G6iaeJG@kreacher> <20190730144134.GA12844@localhost.localdomain> <100ba4aff1c6434a81e47774ab4acddc@AUSX13MPC105.AMER.DELL.COM> <8246360B-F7D9-42EB-94FC-82995A769E28@canonical.com> <20190730191934.GD13948@localhost.localdomain> <7d3e0b8ba1444194a153c93faa1cabb3@AUSX13MPC105.AMER.DELL.COM> <20190730213114.GK13948@localhost.localdomain> <20190731221956.GB15795@localhost.localdomain> <70D536BE-8DC7-4CA2-84A9-AFB067BA520E@canonical.com> <38d4b4b107154454a932781acde0fa5a@AUSX13MPC105.AMER.DELL.COM> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org at 06:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:05 PM wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki >>> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 12:30 PM >>> To: Kai-Heng Feng; Keith Busch; Limonciello, Mario >>> Cc: Keith Busch; Christoph Hellwig; Sagi Grimberg; linux-nvme; Linux >>> PM; Linux >>> Kernel Mailing List; Rajat Jain >>> Subject: Re: [Regression] Commit "nvme/pci: Use host managed power >>> state for >>> suspend" has problems >>> >>> >>> [EXTERNAL EMAIL] >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 11:06 AM Kai-Heng Feng >>> wrote: >>>> at 06:33, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:22 AM Keith Busch wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 11:25:51PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>>>> A couple of remarks if you will. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First, we don't know which case is the majority at this point. For >>>>>>> now, there is one example of each, but it may very well turn out that >>>>>>> the SK Hynix BC501 above needs to be quirked. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Second, the reference here really is 5.2, so if there are any systems >>>>>>> that are not better off with 5.3-rc than they were with 5.2, well, we >>>>>>> have not made progress. However, if there are systems that are worse >>>>>>> off with 5.3, that's bad. In the face of the latest findings the >>>>>>> only >>>>>>> way to avoid that is to be backwards compatible with 5.2 and that's >>>>>>> where my patch is going. That cannot be achieved by quirking all >>>>>>> cases that are reported as "bad", because there still may be >>>>>>> unreported ones. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have to agree. I think your proposal may allow PCI D3cold, >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it may. >>>> >>>> Somehow the 9380 with Toshiba NVMe never hits SLP_S0 with or without >>>> Rafael’s patch. >>>> But the “real” s2idle power consumption does improve with the patch. >>> >>> Do you mean this patch: >>> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/70D536BE-8DC7-4CA2-84A9- >>> AFB067BA520E@canonical.com/T/#m456aa5c69973a3b68f2cdd4713a1ce83be5145 >>> 8f >>> >>> or the $subject one without the above? >>> >>>> Can we use a DMI based quirk for this platform? It seems like a platform >>>> specific issue. >>> >>> We seem to see too many "platform-specific issues" here. :-) >>> >>> To me, the status quo (ie. what we have in 5.3-rc2) is not defensible. >>> Something needs to be done to improve the situation. >> >> Rafael, would it be possible to try popping out PC401 from the 9380 and >> into a 9360 to >> confirm there actually being a platform impact or not? > > Not really, sorry. > >> I was hoping to have something useful from Hynix by now before >> responding, but oh well. >> >> In terms of what is the majority, I do know that between folks at Dell, >> Google, Compal, >> Wistron, Canonical, Micron, Hynix, Toshiba, LiteOn, and Western Digital >> we tested a wide >> variety of SSDs with this patch series. I would like to think that they >> are representative of >> what's being manufactured into machines now. > > Well, what about drives already in the field? My concern is mostly > about those ones. > >> Notably the LiteOn CL1 was tested with the HMB flushing support and >> and Hynix PC401 was tested with older firmware though. >> >>>>>> In which case we do need to reintroduce the HMB handling. >>>>> >>>>> Right. >>>> >>>> The patch alone doesn’t break HMB Toshiba NVMe I tested. But I think >>>> it’s >>>> still safer to do proper HMB handling. >>> >>> Well, so can anyone please propose something specific? Like an >>> alternative patch? >> >> This was proposed a few days ago: >> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2019-July/026056.html >> >> However we're still not sure why it is needed, and it will take some >> time to get >> a proper failure analysis from LiteOn regarding the CL1. > > Thanks for the update, but IMO we still need to do something before > final 5.3 while the investigation continues. > > Honestly, at this point I would vote for going back to the 5.2 > behavior at least by default and only running the new code on the > drives known to require it (because they will block PC10 otherwise). > > Possibly (ideally) with an option for users who can't get beyond PC3 > to test whether or not the new code helps them. I just found out that the XPS 9380 at my hand never reaches SLP_S0 but only PC10. This happens with or without putting the device to D3. Kai-Heng From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kai.heng.feng@canonical.com (Kai-Heng Feng) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 18:55:51 +0800 Subject: [Regression] Commit "nvme/pci: Use host managed power state for suspend" has problems In-Reply-To: References: <4323ed84dd07474eab65699b4d007aaf@AUSX13MPC105.AMER.DELL.COM> <47415939.KV5G6iaeJG@kreacher> <20190730144134.GA12844@localhost.localdomain> <100ba4aff1c6434a81e47774ab4acddc@AUSX13MPC105.AMER.DELL.COM> <8246360B-F7D9-42EB-94FC-82995A769E28@canonical.com> <20190730191934.GD13948@localhost.localdomain> <7d3e0b8ba1444194a153c93faa1cabb3@AUSX13MPC105.AMER.DELL.COM> <20190730213114.GK13948@localhost.localdomain> <20190731221956.GB15795@localhost.localdomain> <70D536BE-8DC7-4CA2-84A9-AFB067BA520E@canonical.com> <38d4b4b107154454a932781acde0fa5a@AUSX13MPC105.AMER.DELL.COM> Message-ID: <43A8DF53-8463-4314-9E8E-47A7D3C5A709@canonical.com> at 06:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019@9:05 PM wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki >>> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 12:30 PM >>> To: Kai-Heng Feng; Keith Busch; Limonciello, Mario >>> Cc: Keith Busch; Christoph Hellwig; Sagi Grimberg; linux-nvme; Linux >>> PM; Linux >>> Kernel Mailing List; Rajat Jain >>> Subject: Re: [Regression] Commit "nvme/pci: Use host managed power >>> state for >>> suspend" has problems >>> >>> >>> [EXTERNAL EMAIL] >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 11:06 AM Kai-Heng Feng >>> wrote: >>>>@06:33, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019@12:22 AM Keith Busch wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019@11:25:51PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>>>> A couple of remarks if you will. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First, we don't know which case is the majority at this point. For >>>>>>> now, there is one example of each, but it may very well turn out that >>>>>>> the SK Hynix BC501 above needs to be quirked. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Second, the reference here really is 5.2, so if there are any systems >>>>>>> that are not better off with 5.3-rc than they were with 5.2, well, we >>>>>>> have not made progress. However, if there are systems that are worse >>>>>>> off with 5.3, that's bad. In the face of the latest findings the >>>>>>> only >>>>>>> way to avoid that is to be backwards compatible with 5.2 and that's >>>>>>> where my patch is going. That cannot be achieved by quirking all >>>>>>> cases that are reported as "bad", because there still may be >>>>>>> unreported ones. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have to agree. I think your proposal may allow PCI D3cold, >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it may. >>>> >>>> Somehow the 9380 with Toshiba NVMe never hits SLP_S0 with or without >>>> Rafael?s patch. >>>> But the ?real? s2idle power consumption does improve with the patch. >>> >>> Do you mean this patch: >>> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/70D536BE-8DC7-4CA2-84A9- >>> AFB067BA520E at canonical.com/T/#m456aa5c69973a3b68f2cdd4713a1ce83be5145 >>> 8f >>> >>> or the $subject one without the above? >>> >>>> Can we use a DMI based quirk for this platform? It seems like a platform >>>> specific issue. >>> >>> We seem to see too many "platform-specific issues" here. :-) >>> >>> To me, the status quo (ie. what we have in 5.3-rc2) is not defensible. >>> Something needs to be done to improve the situation. >> >> Rafael, would it be possible to try popping out PC401 from the 9380 and >> into a 9360 to >> confirm there actually being a platform impact or not? > > Not really, sorry. > >> I was hoping to have something useful from Hynix by now before >> responding, but oh well. >> >> In terms of what is the majority, I do know that between folks at Dell, >> Google, Compal, >> Wistron, Canonical, Micron, Hynix, Toshiba, LiteOn, and Western Digital >> we tested a wide >> variety of SSDs with this patch series. I would like to think that they >> are representative of >> what's being manufactured into machines now. > > Well, what about drives already in the field? My concern is mostly > about those ones. > >> Notably the LiteOn CL1 was tested with the HMB flushing support and >> and Hynix PC401 was tested with older firmware though. >> >>>>>> In which case we do need to reintroduce the HMB handling. >>>>> >>>>> Right. >>>> >>>> The patch alone doesn?t break HMB Toshiba NVMe I tested. But I think >>>> it?s >>>> still safer to do proper HMB handling. >>> >>> Well, so can anyone please propose something specific? Like an >>> alternative patch? >> >> This was proposed a few days ago: >> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2019-July/026056.html >> >> However we're still not sure why it is needed, and it will take some >> time to get >> a proper failure analysis from LiteOn regarding the CL1. > > Thanks for the update, but IMO we still need to do something before > final 5.3 while the investigation continues. > > Honestly, at this point I would vote for going back to the 5.2 > behavior at least by default and only running the new code on the > drives known to require it (because they will block PC10 otherwise). > > Possibly (ideally) with an option for users who can't get beyond PC3 > to test whether or not the new code helps them. I just found out that the XPS 9380 at my hand never reaches SLP_S0 but only PC10. This happens with or without putting the device to D3. Kai-Heng