From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 107638834 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2026 15:07:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783609669; cv=none; b=RghOabeP5rEL4wKrZstVuEdatwP7P5OFkVneSjXjm/HWT2JjhgOfYS5bbGatiiGAa+EdaJn3mhxcJhae4WN2Uusai159mfrTQGYkxrK5AOmP6l6DB/XAUaslnT1EpYxP3n51RMUQJuV4UlfiLu+0Hpk1iUI+MH1wNI4azQv5NIw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783609669; c=relaxed/simple; bh=q0f/4dJU+LcKoTndGeexsUrh39Bb0cTa2TEVeL3K4qk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=AQgvaIgPmYxzPTD1wyqopvfxqHO/cJNmvyhqD5HQAp4Pvk6U0phaTuf8+yWHeGcvZ6OVjXTG7qhRhOG1Bw0HWe/A/aZkeHiL20/JgZ9AdulJJGDVFUoPEFOvkQ1HMhPHYIm3oYaFBhu71TPGo8QKQY6x//Rgs5YMW3tnO2D3Tyo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=ML2RwY0e; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ML2RwY0e" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A26821F000E9; Thu, 9 Jul 2026 15:07:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1783609668; bh=yTqn+FQc94UqRkLSVubEtUVfaHcm4lXfPasCJVUGVKo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=ML2RwY0eLHZcTWolvsKHLe8E0onmSPnz/9IHRLzQtzwU9nkUEYP2MzeP+XaiC/YZt +tbEZvnsyV37SCA2pVfEXqWAQQxbnTGmKmjyrrxubcBPoQhzXgs5Td73fM/MAPWiml Qr/C8k8TgKP26A6t3gDdSVMeCl0U4X08m1q/J3GlFtn041/I5leQa3ebgG1TK45Dmg 1dTCNPcMQrzhinxNo6IUoGCOYaxQcLW3Il9lpPI8KrwKgJ1ZB5vdUEAOiwJK2KkgZA CfG1SN2mCSuikK9AQ+foDqhoeNgEudQewmapmhfUsYSYzD46Sei2JXR/HfEjX/JlqS 0aEV4mfWLIWrg== Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2026 09:07:46 -0600 From: Keith Busch To: guzebing Cc: Christoph Hellwig , axboe@kernel.dk, sagi@grimberg.me, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Guzebing Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme: make firmware activation poll interval configurable Message-ID: References: <20260627010610.47768-1-guzebing1612@gmail.com> <20260709064233.GA18381@lst.de> <7ae65361-f601-4fd9-8eac-5dfb9f6bb7ea@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7ae65361-f601-4fd9-8eac-5dfb9f6bb7ea@gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 05:06:11PM +0800, guzebing wrote: > The Samsung PM9D3a Gen5 SSD reports MTFA = 10, i.e. 1000 ms. > > I also checked another device, an Intel/Solidigm P5520 Gen4 drive. It > reports MTFA = 100, i.e. 10000 ms, while the observed online activation > time is about 800 ms. > > I agree that deriving the polling interval from MTFA would be better > than adding a module parameter. Given that MTFA is a conservative upper > bound rather than a good estimate of the common activation time, would > using a small fraction of it, for example MTFA / 100 clamped to 10..100 > ms, be a reasonable policy for v2? > > That would give 10 ms for the PM9D3a device above, while keeping the > current 100 ms interval for the P5520 case and for large-MTFA devices. nvme_wait_ready() has a similar polling loop on the csts register, but it does a udelay_range for 1-2 msecs no matter what the ready timeout is. Maybe just do the same for consistency?