From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.tuxedocomputers.com (mail.tuxedocomputers.com [157.90.84.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF3C885929 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 09:24:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=157.90.84.7 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712136292; cv=none; b=rIWidwaQdSk9TIsDZetfMUOzvqElhKdWUrZHsoF7ZaZlW3WMQjzOLKNYHNex0DEsTj9Cuwe/+sL2bOyaVKON45fWkSUBqW2StPGM9mxfttTNQ2MIwiX/NKW1vuvknJmJ9lA1w2nI7JC77tvVCu+jgB3XCHchw58Kdg0BJm3yVxw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712136292; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MmhcRQqnp4D2RnUjym/iPhtvSpqZEVKItC65nUiphMI=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Ix9YUxvRVSdnkiHGFegQ8sYRGdMjzSMWVYKuHZF03OyLuVsUzAb9pR1E4qux1FakJ6CNOrJEjpY0tb/5HlDipdaYZIyU4E1qn7ClBdkWi2EZJ7wslEuHwrqOEE6A4AKfPkYorne0dyjCmLxmZ8YjOb0EPUrvbJlij6TnXw2PbTo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=tuxedocomputers.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tuxedocomputers.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=tuxedocomputers.com header.i=@tuxedocomputers.com header.b=p1TiY3WA; arc=none smtp.client-ip=157.90.84.7 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=tuxedocomputers.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tuxedocomputers.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=tuxedocomputers.com header.i=@tuxedocomputers.com header.b="p1TiY3WA" Received: from [192.168.175.29] (host-88-217-226-44.customer.m-online.net [88.217.226.44]) (Authenticated sender: g.gottleuber@tuxedocomputers.com) by mail.tuxedocomputers.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8CADA2FC011E; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 11:24:39 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tuxedocomputers.com; s=default; t=1712136282; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=uj0mT6ecsQmbbD3y84s+Blq2Eu930+4GVa0se5gXceQ=; b=p1TiY3WAXu4vSaL3Qv6MAobK13vs1HWOeO3ktp0jZJACSf79Xz4kf7vvJbxzuc/2y3yEZQ GmxyZQbzptUSq+DetyjQLiRqC8fyws80Yk2EOfmjZTX/ZxsDInaw9Ipg7mfEVHMojvngHc qLRuEQi+igaq0Y/txxXvEEm91iH6OqI= Authentication-Results: mail.tuxedocomputers.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=g.gottleuber@tuxedocomputers.com smtp.mailfrom=g.gottleuber@tuxedocomputers.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 11:24:39 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme-pci: Add sleep quirk for Samsung 990 Evo To: Keith Busch Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Werner Sembach , Jens Axboe , Sagi Grimberg , Georg Gottleuber , linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20240328130923.61752-1-wse@tuxedocomputers.com> <20240402131658.GA31963@lst.de> <230e3f41-9f6b-42fd-a411-567abbaebbbe@tuxedocomputers.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Georg Gottleuber In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Am 02.04.24 um 18:08 schrieb Keith Busch: > On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 05:13:48PM +0200, Georg Gottleuber wrote: >> Am 02.04.24 um 15:16 schrieb Christoph Hellwig: >>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 02:09:22PM +0100, Werner Sembach wrote: >>>> From: Georg Gottleuber >>>> >>>> On some TUXEDO platforms, a Samsung 990 Evo NVMe leads to a high >>>> power consumption in s2idle sleep (2-3 watts). >>>> >>>> This patch applies 'Force No Simple Suspend' quirk to achieve a >>>> sleep with a lower power consumption, typically around 0.5 watts. >>> >>> Does this only apply to a specific SSD or all SSDs on this platform? >>> How do these platforms even get into the conditional? Probably >>> through acpi_storage_d3 setting, which probably is set incorrectly >>> for the platform? Any chance to just fix that? >> >> Yes, this only apply to a specific SSD. I tested these SSDs (on >> PH4PRX1_PH6PRX1): >> * Kingston NV1, SNVS250G >> * Samsung 980, MZ-V8V500 >> * Samsung 970 Evo, S46DNX0K900454D >> * Samsung 980 Pro, S69ENX0T709932L >> >> S2idle consumes around 0.4 watts with these SSDs. But with a Samsung 990 Evo >> s2idle on this platform consumes 3.7 to 4.4 watts (6.8 vs 6.5 kernel). > > For all these different SSDs you tested in this platform, do you see the > "platform quirk: setting simple suspend" in the dmesg? I just want to > confirm if the platform is changing the reported acpi_storage_d3 value > for different SSD models or if they're all the same. Yes, without my quirk for all tested SSDs (including Samsung 990 Evo) "platform quirk: setting simple suspend" is printed in dmesg.