Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.31 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.31;
Date:   Thu, 7 Dec 2023 16:51:01 +0530
From:   Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@kernel.org>
To:     Nitin Rawat <quic_nitirawa@quicinc.com>
Cc:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@kernel.org>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        Naresh Maramaina <quic_mnaresh@quicinc.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        Peter Wang <peter.wang@mediatek.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>, chu.stanley@gmail.com,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, quic_cang@quicinc.com,
        quic_nguyenb@quicinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] ufs: core: Add CPU latency QoS support for ufs
 driver
Message-ID: <20231207112101.GK2932@thinkpad>
References: <20231204143101.64163-1-quic_mnaresh@quicinc.com>
 <20231204143101.64163-2-quic_mnaresh@quicinc.com>
 <590ade27-b4da-49be-933b-e9959aa0cd4c@acm.org>
 <692cd503-5b14-4be6-831d-d8e9c282a95e@quicinc.com>
 <5e7c5c75-cb5f-4afe-9d57-b0cab01a6f26@acm.org>
 <b9373252-710c-4a54-95cc-046314796960@quicinc.com>
 <20231206153242.GI12802@thinkpad>
 <effb603e-ca7a-4f24-9783-4d62790165ae@acm.org>
 <20231207094357.GI2932@thinkpad>
 <286b6f8a-c634-19ed-cf53-276cfe05d03f@quicinc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <286b6f8a-c634-19ed-cf53-276cfe05d03f@quicinc.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 03:56:43PM +0530, Nitin Rawat wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/7/2023 3:13 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 03:02:04PM -1000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On 12/6/23 05:32, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 07:32:54PM +0530, Naresh Maramaina wrote:
> > > > > On 12/5/2023 10:41 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > > > > On 12/4/23 21:58, Naresh Maramaina wrote:
> > > > > > > On 12/5/2023 12:30 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 12/4/23 06:30, Maramaina Naresh wrote:
> > > > > > > > > +    /* This capability allows the host controller driver to
> > > > > > > > > use the PM QoS
> > > > > > > > > +     * feature.
> > > > > > > > > +     */
> > > > > > > > > +    UFSHCD_CAP_PM_QOS                = 1 << 13,
> > > > > > > > >     };
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Why does it depend on the host driver whether or not PM QoS is
> > > > > > > > enabled? Why isn't it enabled unconditionally?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > For some platform vendors power KPI might be more important than
> > > > > > > random io KPI. Hence this flag is disabled by default and can be
> > > > > > > enabled based on platform requirement.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > How about leaving this flag out unless if a host vendor asks explicitly
> > > > > > for this flag?
> > > > > 
> > > > > IMHO, instead of completely removing this flag, how about having
> > > > > flag like "UFSHCD_CAP_DISABLE_PM_QOS" which will make PMQOS enable
> > > > > by default and if some host vendor wants to disable it explicitly,
> > > > > they can enable that flag.
> > > > > Please let me know your opinion.
> > > 
> > > That would result in a flag that is tested but that is never set by
> > > upstream code. I'm not sure that's acceptable.
> > > 
> > 
> > Agree. The flag shouldn't be introduced if there are no users.
> > 
> > > > If a vendor wants to disable this feature, then the driver has to be modified.
> > > > That won't be very convenient. So either this has to be configured through sysfs
> > > > or Kconfig if flexibility matters.
> > > 
> > > Kconfig sounds worse to me because changing any Kconfig flag requires a
> > > modification of the Android GKI kernel.
> > > 
> > 
> > Hmm, ok. Then I think we can have a sysfs hook to toggle the enable switch.
> 
> Hi Bart, Mani
> 
> How about keeping this feature enabled by default and having a module
> parameter to disable pmqos feature if required ?
> 

Module params not encouraged these days unless there are no other feasible
options available.

- Mani

> Regards,
> Nitin
> 
> > 
> > - Mani
> > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > Bart.
> > 
> 

-- 
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்