Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <7a66077d6e5a3590d027756941850d6058ccb40c.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] scsi: ufs: Keep device active mode only
 fWriteBoosterBufferFlushDuringHibernate == 1
From:   Bean Huo <huobean@gmail.com>
To:     Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@wdc.com>,
        "alim.akhtar@samsung.com" <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
        "asutoshd@codeaurora.org" <asutoshd@codeaurora.org>,
        "jejb@linux.ibm.com" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "martin.petersen@oracle.com" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        "stanley.chu@mediatek.com" <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>,
        "beanhuo@micron.com" <beanhuo@micron.com>,
        "bvanassche@acm.org" <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        "tomas.winkler@intel.com" <tomas.winkler@intel.com>,
        "cang@codeaurora.org" <cang@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 08 Dec 2020 10:41:22 +0100
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR04MB657584B4590496FA6BF11725FCCD0@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20201206101335.3418-1-huobean@gmail.com>
         <20201206101335.3418-3-huobean@gmail.com>
         <DM6PR04MB6575AED736BE44CA8D4B8998FCCE0@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
         <2ef12e328ecdc411e7d145a331d7c8ce668bf2be.camel@gmail.com>
         <DM6PR04MB657584B4590496FA6BF11725FCCD0@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 09:05 +0000, Avri Altman wrote:
> > "
> > If fWriteBoosterBufferFlushDuringHibernate ==0, device will not
> > flush
> > WB, even if you keep device as "active mode" and LINK in hibernate
> > state.
> 
> OK, so what you are actually saying, is that since we are only
> toggling this flag once per
> link startup / recovery, in case of a failure, however rare - the
> host may be still keep vcc on
> for nothing, as the device will do nothing in that extra wake time. 
> Right?
> 

again, this is a BUG, BUG...
Bug is a Bug, doesn't matter it is rare or not rare. 

Tell me why we retry three times in ufshcd_query_flag_retry() in case
of failure?


> But every time ufshcd_wb_need_flush() is called we are reading some
> other flags/attributes?
> What about them? Why not protecting them as well?
> 

did you read ufshcd_wb_need_flush() fully? they have been properly
protected.

> Sorry - the whole idea doesn't make any sense to me.
> 

Thanks very much for sharing your opinion, I am very happy to hear your
opinion. Because you don't believe this is a bug, I will ask other UFS
guys to review, let Martin make the last decision.


Thanks agaion for your review.

Bean