From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750988AbdE0QON (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 May 2017 12:14:13 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-f169.google.com ([209.85.223.169]:33338 "EHLO mail-io0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750724AbdE0QOK (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 May 2017 12:14:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <6760ae9459ba19657f8009a9231b97a71114a1e5.1495663545.git.luto@kernel.org> <20170526085225.GA28728@lst.de> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 09:14:09 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: i1R1c8YhywQJe8WxG7Wvzi5EpQc Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] nvme: Wait at least 6000ms before entering the deepest idle state To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Jens Axboe , Sagi Grimberg , Keith Busch , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Kai-Heng Feng , linux-nvme Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> >> Just following a somewhat odd and arbitray policy from another driver >> that doesn't fix anything by itself certainly isn't stable material. > > I'd be fine with skipping this patch entirely at least until we find > some evidence that it solves a problem instead. It's certainly worth waiting for confirmation that it actually changes anything, but I did want to pipe up to say that "following a somewhat odd and arbitrary policy from another driver" is not wrong per se. In fact, on the power management we pretty much had to do that, simply because that "odd and arbitrary policy" (Windows behavior) was the only thing that had ever been tested by anybody. Same goes for a lot of PCI subsystem behavior etc. So it's not wrong per se to just emulate others' behaviors. But yes, we should have some reason for doing so, not just doing so blindly. Linus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: torvalds@linux-foundation.org (Linus Torvalds) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 09:14:09 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] nvme: Wait at least 6000ms before entering the deepest idle state In-Reply-To: References: <6760ae9459ba19657f8009a9231b97a71114a1e5.1495663545.git.luto@kernel.org> <20170526085225.GA28728@lst.de> Message-ID: On Sat, May 27, 2017@9:08 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2017@1:52 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> >> Just following a somewhat odd and arbitray policy from another driver >> that doesn't fix anything by itself certainly isn't stable material. > > I'd be fine with skipping this patch entirely at least until we find > some evidence that it solves a problem instead. It's certainly worth waiting for confirmation that it actually changes anything, but I did want to pipe up to say that "following a somewhat odd and arbitrary policy from another driver" is not wrong per se. In fact, on the power management we pretty much had to do that, simply because that "odd and arbitrary policy" (Windows behavior) was the only thing that had ever been tested by anybody. Same goes for a lot of PCI subsystem behavior etc. So it's not wrong per se to just emulate others' behaviors. But yes, we should have some reason for doing so, not just doing so blindly. Linus