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=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 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 86B8BC433E1 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 22:05:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E2B0206A1 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 22:05:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="V1pPr+lF" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726432AbgF3WFE (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jun 2020 18:05:04 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39486 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726095AbgF3WFD (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jun 2020 18:05:03 -0400 Received: from mail-ej1-x644.google.com (mail-ej1-x644.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::644]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 957A5C061755; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:05:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-x644.google.com with SMTP id rk21so22264243ejb.2; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:05:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=egQ4BGWJwteRFV/3C15qu/VRsp09Uh379he2OhRxJJ8=; b=V1pPr+lFhTYqoW/4omk3CaH3Hf+C4ij4nQON94pVIYsWtSgRFLcwm8nft6SEbzhzx2 zMCtzuoT74tgtD0bODXapszHHhjYKQmEDpHmV+WhKstXK/4LxrBajJkmmXxww5QUcZAd PhyEtvfOiCtXFQ1YtdI9mhLJavjVT1YEJEtoaKIP89SpsbmHibnkHxQZA+3+d3lS6/7f gPqVwm5dTmB0ZI8eyUiKmusm3lhyfeG7aZ534CT27RvAWfsjIrmZoZ1WAHJhCmN9GYhZ lE20YVysD4eeC3gdry/OpzFduLt29M9ujf0cy2Dk61qCOV6SmhN6x5mZfDcsfATCGr1o UJNg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=egQ4BGWJwteRFV/3C15qu/VRsp09Uh379he2OhRxJJ8=; b=NBhqr9ALgZni5Dt8YLwB56/vQEZp7zJW1DGpzeK9EWzUR+SrYSM1Nx15eXwxrv5Lz8 PV+ayQp41GcnbhOharXbCSDp9n2oHTZmlXrjqpmJ5xso7VEge5rEjw2lsDjFXhzgv76k n6ZnUjPjuqFnaV+vQQmIPoPHzG4eUxY7it8H/paA6cNkcAnjCDDVnNjLC8w/sraHOe4/ 9+XL8JtQk22cB/Mo1UwvpBWlNaPeB2H2Jzs8b90eC3sFkmi98y3wdoGF4RfnoQJX+qQt 0Rn+WQhoFZaelRBJFy4z7UAGPHDaz9tkSNk7qdI1EveBfU5zu55WmxS23IsLxQ4VCyc/ urjw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532n7Ph2QXbEPAQG2fTYHapzkbx9+7Zxf1Prvd6CZ+PZPOiLgjYN 74llwAkyFke2EFTbVgW/bPk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxpEuRlMZt7mHPtT9izVdh8n98vXpyGSKNTHsCn7YZ7BR8/f9ldhCEaS1UqOUyzZHOUZpxnrg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:7802:: with SMTP id u2mr20688743ejm.478.1593554702359; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:05:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ubuntu-laptop (ip5f5bfcc0.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de. [95.91.252.192]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id z1sm3054870ejb.41.2020.06.30.15.05.01 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:05:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/5] scsi: ufs: Add Host Performance Booster Support From: Bean Huo To: daejun7.park@samsung.com, "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 Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 00:05:00 +0200 In-Reply-To: <231786897.01593479281798.JavaMail.epsvc@epcpadp2> References: <60647cf00d9db6818488a714b48b9b6e2a1eb728.camel@gmail.com> <948f573d136b39410f7d610e5019aafc9c04fe62.camel@gmail.com> <963815509.21592879582091.JavaMail.epsvc@epcpadp2> <336371513.41593411482259.JavaMail.epsvc@epcpadp2> <231786897.01593479281798.JavaMail.epsvc@epcpadp2> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5-0ubuntu0.18.04.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. Thanks, Bean