Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] scsi: ufs: Optimize host lock on transfer requests send/compl paths

From: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
To: Bean Huo <huobean@gmail.com>
Cc: asutoshd@codeaurora.org, nguyenb@codeaurora.org,
	hongwus@codeaurora.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@android.com, Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>,
	Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
	Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
	Kiwoong Kim <kwmad.kim@samsung.com>,
	Satya Tangirala <satyat@google.com>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
	<linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] scsi: ufs: Optimize host lock on transfer requests send/compl paths
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 10:14:39 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <adc85803e27226bc8d24c53061e39214@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6d6d296a84f1e62f65fda4d172a85bb35d9a3684.camel@gmail.com>

Hi Bean,

On 2021-06-01 00:04, Bean Huo wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-05-24 at 01:36 -0700, Can Guo wrote:
>> Current UFS IRQ handler is completely wrapped by host lock, and
>> because
>> 
>> ufshcd_send_command() is also protected by host lock, when IRQ
>> handler
>> 
>> fires, not only the CPU running the IRQ handler cannot send new
>> requests,
>> 
>> the rest CPUs can neither. Move the host lock wrapping the IRQ
>> handler into
>> 
>> specific branches, i.e., ufshcd_uic_cmd_compl(),
>> ufshcd_check_errors(),
>> 
>> ufshcd_tmc_handler() and ufshcd_transfer_req_compl(). Meanwhile, to
>> further
>> 
>> reduce occpuation of host lock in ufshcd_transfer_req_compl(), host
>> lock is
>> 
>> no longer required to call __ufshcd_transfer_req_compl(). As per
>> test, the
>> 
>> optimization can bring considerable gain to random read/write
>> performance.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cc: Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>
>> 
>> Co-developed-by: Asutosh Das <asutoshd@codeaurora.org>
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Asutosh Das <asutoshd@codeaurora.org>
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
> 
> Can,
> The patch looks good to me.
> I did a UFS queue limitation test before, observed that once the queue
> is full, then the active task number in the queue will get down. For
> the Nvme, the scenario is the same. You can refer to the slide 23, and
> slide 24 in the pdf:
> https://elinux.org/images/6/6c/Linux_Storage_System_Bottleneck_Exploration_V0.3.pdf
> I don't know if your patch can fix this
> issue.

I've studied these slides made by you many times, it is really good.
I will do some study later on this. Thanks for the slides.

> 
> Unfortunately, I cannot verify UTRLCNR usage flow since my platform is
> v2.1. But at least my test can prove that the patch doesn't impact the
> legacy(UFSHCI is less than v3.0) doorbell usage flow.
> 

Thanks for your time :).

Regards,
Can Guo.

> Reviewed-by: Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>
> 
> 
> Bean