Re: [PATCH 0/4] PCI: Enable LTR/OBFF before device is used by driver

[Don Dutile]

On 06/08/2012 02:02 PM, Myron Stowe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Bjorn Helgaas<bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Xudong Hao<xudong.hao@xxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > > The series of patches enable LTR and OBFF before device is used by driver, and
> > > introduce a couple of functions to save/restore LTR latency value.
> > >
> > > Patch 1/4 introduce new function pci_obff_supported() as pci_ltr_support().
> > >
> > > Patch 2/4 enable LTR(Latency tolerance reporting) before device is used by
> > > driver.
> > >
> > > Patch 3/4 enable OBFF(optimized buffer flush/fill) before device is used by
> > > driver.
> > >
> > > Patch 4/4 introduce a couple of functions pci_save_ltr_value() and
> > > pci_restore_ltr_value() to save and restore LTR latency value, while device is
> > > reset.
> >
> > We need some justification for these patches.  Why do we want them?
> > Do they improve performance?  Reduce power consumption?  How have they
> > been tested?  How can we be confident that these features work
> > correctly on hardware in the field?  Should or could the BIOS enable
> > them itself, based on OEM testing and desire to support these
> > features?
>
> I too am a little nervous about these changes due to Jesse's earlier response
> (see http://marc.info/?l=linux-pci&m=133372610102933&w=2) where he indicated:
>    "Given how device specific these extensions are, I'd expect you'd need
>     to know about each specific device anyway, which is why I think the
>     control belongs in the driver."
>
> Having these features enabled by default may be too aggressive.  Not saying it
> is not correct - something you may be able to inform us about, especially since
> you are with Intel - just make me nervous without further information.
>
> Myron
+1; like AER, I prefer the enablement be in the driver; when/if the
feature has proven itself reliable, then the kernel can enable it by default
In the case of the kernel & driver doing an enable, it won't hurt.
If want hook to disable by boot parameter, the kernel would have to clear
on scan, and put the disable *after* driver probe.

> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/