Message-ID: <4FD24022.2020608@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 14:10:42 -0400
From: Don Dutile <ddutile@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110927 Red Hat/3.1.15-1.el6_1 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@gmail.com>
CC: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, Xudong Hao <xudong.hao@intel.com>,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, avi@redhat.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com,
        myron.stowe@redhat.com, xiantao.zhang@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] PCI: Enable LTR/OBFF before device is used by driver
References: <1339142492-13625-1-git-send-email-xudong.hao@intel.com>	<CAErSpo5DHQv0wuipPWGd5nwzui1C3-ucWCuppe0Zpww55u4pxQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAL-B5D2o55Xf6E4scGu9ibbQx=9_CJD7qLsBxhUnyVSw6kEYhA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL-B5D2o55Xf6E4scGu9ibbQx=9_CJD7qLsBxhUnyVSw6kEYhA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2804
Lines: 58

On 06/08/2012 02:02 PM, Myron Stowe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Bjorn Helgaas<bhelgaas@google.com>  wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Xudong Hao<xudong.hao@intel.com>  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@vger.kernel.org
>> 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@vger.kernel.org
> 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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/