From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEF64C433E1 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 00:48:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9052E207F5 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 00:48:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=samsung.com header.i=@samsung.com header.b="YFBSv7Vj" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726382AbgGAAsK (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jun 2020 20:48:10 -0400 Received: from mailout3.samsung.com ([203.254.224.33]:34453 "EHLO mailout3.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726038AbgGAAsG (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jun 2020 20:48:06 -0400 Received: from epcas1p3.samsung.com (unknown [182.195.41.47]) by mailout3.samsung.com (KnoxPortal) with ESMTP id 20200701004802epoutp03bd22a74a785979d28ec0c333a682ad14~denQ1CKbT1593615936epoutp03f for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 00:48:02 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mailout3.samsung.com 20200701004802epoutp03bd22a74a785979d28ec0c333a682ad14~denQ1CKbT1593615936epoutp03f DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=samsung.com; s=mail20170921; t=1593564482; bh=CNHOyk7FntBxbO6DreAHDvfBp5z8zIJ33mfiTt6PEOo=; h=Subject:Reply-To:From:To:CC:In-Reply-To:Date:References:From; b=YFBSv7VjrWxwTug/llzdu5kvWGSpoSIK5GbGHzCx9tY1NixRa12bgqSJ6feYOPmMP +l//C8SRBBqQUtKLGXMMayBTqn5RqCon+5NQRjF2JFxIxpmDEg4Li6YZ0DogwZVuoe YbwQ3/qtLGnueccNjJvqaVWXcTNoemptidLCftNw= Received: from epcpadp2 (unknown [182.195.40.12]) by epcas1p1.samsung.com (KnoxPortal) with ESMTP id 20200701004802epcas1p104acdf83bdd554594d94cf051eafaf3f~denQb2vuN3040330403epcas1p1N; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 00:48:02 +0000 (GMT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/5] scsi: ufs: Add Host Performance Booster Support Reply-To: daejun7.park@samsung.com From: Daejun Park To: Bean Huo , Daejun Park , "avri.altman@wdc.com" , "jejb@linux.ibm.com" , "martin.petersen@oracle.com" , "asutoshd@codeaurora.org" , "stanley.chu@mediatek.com" , "cang@codeaurora.org" , "bvanassche@acm.org" , "tomas.winkler@intel.com" , ALIM AKHTAR CC: "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Sang-yoon Oh , Sung-Jun Park , yongmyung lee , Jinyoung CHOI , Adel Choi , BoRam Shin X-Priority: 3 X-Content-Kind-Code: NORMAL In-Reply-To: X-CPGS-Detection: blocking_info_exchange X-Drm-Type: N,general X-Msg-Generator: Mail X-Msg-Type: PERSONAL X-Reply-Demand: N Message-ID: <1210830415.21593564482235.JavaMail.epsvc@epcpadp2> Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 09:14:34 +0900 X-CMS-MailID: 20200701001434epcms2p19a2315a4e4b55344ce1cacd79350408b Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Sendblock-Type: AUTO_CONFIDENTIAL X-CPGSPASS: Y X-CPGSPASS: Y X-Hop-Count: 3 X-CMS-RootMailID: 20200623010201epcms2p11aebdf1fbc719b409968cba997507114 References: <60647cf00d9db6818488a714b48b9b6e2a1eb728.camel@gmail.com> <948f573d136b39410f7d610e5019aafc9c04fe62.camel@gmail.com> <963815509.21592879582091.JavaMail.epsvc@epcpadp2> <336371513.41593411482259.JavaMail.epsvc@epcpadp2> <231786897.01593479281798.JavaMail.epsvc@epcpadp2> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2020-06-30 at 10:05 +0900, Daejun Park wrote: > > Hi Bean, > > > On Mon, 2020-06-29 at 15:15 +0900, Daejun Park wrote: > > > > > Seems you intentionally ignored to give you comments on my > > > > > suggestion. > > > > > let me provide the reason. > > > > > > > > Sorry! I replied to your comment ( > > > > > https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=be575021-e3854728-be56db6e-0cc47a31cdf8-6c7d0e1e42762b92&q=1&u=https%3A%2F%2Flkml.org%2Flkml%2F2020%2F6%2F15%2F1492 > > > > ), > > > > but you didn't reply on that. I thought you agreed because you > > > > didn't > > > > send > > > > any more comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Before submitting your next version patch, please check your > > > > > L2P > > > > > mapping HPB reqeust submission logical algorithem. I have did > > > > > > > > We are also reviewing the code that you submitted before. > > > > It seems to be a performance improvement as it sends a map > > > > request > > > > directly. > > > > > > > > > performance comparison testing on 4KB, there are about 13% > > > > > performance > > > > > drop. Also the hit count is lower. I don't know if this is > > > > > related > > > > > to > > > > > > > > It is interesting that there is actually a performance > > > > improvement. > > > > Could you share the test environment, please? However, I think > > > > stability is > > > > important to HPB driver. We have tested our method with the real > > > > products and > > > > the HPB 1.0 driver is based on that. > > > > > > I just run fio benchmark tool with --rw=randread, --bs=4kb, -- > > > size=8G/10G/64G/100G. and see what performance diff with the direct > > > submission approach. > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > After this patch, your approach can be done as an incremental > > > > patch? > > > > I would > > > > like to test the patch that you submitted and verify it. > > > > > > > > > your current work queue scheduling, since you didn't add the > > > > > timer > > > > > for > > > > > each HPB request. > > > > > > Taking into consideration of the HPB 2.0, can we submit the HPB > > > write > > > request to the SCSI layer? if not, it will be a direct submission > > > way. > > > why not directly use direct way? or maybe you have a more advisable > > > approach to work around this. would you please share with us. > > > appreciate. > > > > I am considering a direct submission way for the next version. > > We will implement the write buffer command of HPB 2.0, after patching > > HPB 1.0. > > > > As for the direct submission of HPB releated command including HPB > > write > > buffer, I think we'd better discuss the right approach in depth > > before > > moving on to the next step. > > > > Hi Daejun > If you need reference code, you can freely copy my code from my RFC v3 > patchset. or if you need my side testing support, just let me, I can > help you test your code. > It will be good example code for developing HPB 2.0. Thanks, Daejun