APPLIED: [Unstable] [PATCH] UBUNTU: [Config] CONFIG_SATA_MOBILE_LPM_POLICY=3

Kai-Heng Feng kai.heng.feng at canonical.com
Thu Apr 5 11:43:22 UTC 2018


Seth Forshee <seth.forshee at canonical.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 12:00:44PM +0800, Kai Heng Feng wrote:
>>> On Mar 29, 2018, at 1:32 AM, Seth Forshee <seth.forshee at canonical.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 07:21:04PM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
>>>> BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1759547
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng at canonical.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  debian.master/config/config.common.ubuntu | 2 +-
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/debian.master/config/config.common.ubuntu
>>>> b/debian.master/config/config.common.ubuntu
>>>> index e09a65ef0a1f..98a828b82f30 100644
>>>> --- a/debian.master/config/config.common.ubuntu
>>>> +++ b/debian.master/config/config.common.ubuntu
>>>> @@ -7691,7 +7691,7 @@ CONFIG_SATA_DWC=m
>>>>  CONFIG_SATA_DWC_OLD_DMA=y
>>>>  CONFIG_SATA_HIGHBANK=y
>>>>  CONFIG_SATA_INIC162X=m
>>>> -CONFIG_SATA_MOBILE_LPM_POLICY=0
>>>> +CONFIG_SATA_MOBILE_LPM_POLICY=3
>>>
>>> From the commit message of the patch adding this:
>>>
>>>   Also enabling LPM by default is not entirely without risk of
>>>   regressions. At least min_power is known to cause issues with some
>>>   disks, including some reports of data corruption.
>>>
>>> Is there any risk of these issues with the value you've chosen here?
>>
>> Yes, users in [1] can't mount rootfs with min_power.
>>
>> I wrote a patch to quirk their devices to use med_power_with_dipm (i.e.
>> CONFIG_SATA_MOBILE_LPM_POLICY=3),
>> unfortunately their disk still have issues with this setting.
>>
>> So yes, some disks are buggy under both min_power and med_power_with_dipm.
>>
>> Since LPM can be set from userspace (e.g. laptop-mode-tools, TLP,  
>> powertop),
>> user will likely to get hit by this bug, one way or another.
>>
>> In a discussion with Hans [2], he mentioned that Fedora will use
>> CONFIG_SATA_MOBILE_LPM_POLICY=3 from v4.15+,
>> I think we should do the same.
>>
>> Also, one of our customer does want us to use a saner default for laptops.
>
> Thanks, applied to unstable/master. Did you also intend to request this
> for bionic?

I think it's too risky for an LTS release, do it in the next release should  
be more manageable.






More information about the kernel-team mailing list