On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 9:14 PM Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.f...@canonical.com> wrote: > > at 19:04, Rafael J. Wysocki <raf...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 12:55 PM Kai-Heng Feng > > <kai.heng.f...@canonical.com> wrote: > >> at 06:26, Rafael J. Wysocki <raf...@kernel.org> wrote: > >> > >>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:05 PM <mario.limoncie...@dell.com> wrote: > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <raf...@kernel.org> > >>>>> 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 > >>>>> <kai.heng.f...@canonical.com> wrote: > >>>>>> at 06:33, Rafael J. Wysocki <raf...@kernel.org> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:22 AM Keith Busch <kbu...@kernel.org> > >>>>>>> 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- > >>>>> afb067ba5...@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. > > > > That's the case for me too. > > > >> This happens with or without putting the device to D3. > > > > On my system, though, it only can get to PC3 without putting the NVMe > > into D3 (as reported previously). > > I forgot to ask, what BIOS version does the system have? > I don’t see this issue on BIOS v1.5.0.
It is 1.5.0 here too.
