Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote: > I think what you are saying is that you'd like a way to use your HIPM > and DIPM without ALPM on the AHCI driver. Fine - it's really easy > to add these levels later - if they don't make sense at the sysfs interface > we can add module params to specify the definition of "min_power" as > being performed via HIPM and DIPM instead of ALPM - although as of yet we > have no evidence what so ever that this method actually adds value over > ALPM. I don't really care whose PS implementation goes in. Believe me. I try to stay away from that. I don't even like my previous implementation. ALPM has unnecessary performance penalty && is not applicable to non-ahci controller. Have you tested ALPM on non-intel ahcis? There are a lot out there these days. I don't think the interface you're suggesting is a good one. Do you? >> Also, I generally don't think AHCI ALPM is a good idea. It doesn't have >> 'cool down' period before entering PS state which unnecessarily hampers >> performance and might increase chance of device malfunction. > > "might increase"? How about some actual examples of where you've shown > this to be a problem? I wouldn't have used "might" if I had actual examples. Well, feel free to disregard anything following the "might". I just feel uneasy about jumping back and forth between PS and active states between consecutive commands. > I can assert that I think ALPM is a good idea, > because I've never had a report of it causing problems. Windows has > been using this feature for a very long time - and you have to admit that > they have a pretty large market share. Nobody is complaining about ALPM > increasing device malfunction, so unless you have proof it seems insane > to nak due to this. Is ALPM enabled by default? How do they deal with the performance degradation? -- tejun - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
