Re: [PATCH v19 3/3] scsi: ufs: Prepare HPB read for cached sub-region

[Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>]

On 2021-02-09 22:21, Bean Huo wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-02-09 at 13:25 +0000, Avri Altman wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > > > > +     put_unaligned_be64(ppn, &cdb[6]);
>> > > >
>> > > > You are assuming the HPB entries read out by "HPB Read Buffer"
>> > > > cmd
>> > > > are
>> > > > in Little
>> > > > Endian, which is why you are using put_unaligned_be64 here.
>> > > > However,
>> > > > this assumption
>> > > > is not right for all the other flash vendors - HPB entries read
>> > > > out
>> > > > by
>> > > > "HPB Read Buffer"
>> > > > cmd may come in Big Endian, if so, their random read
>> > > > performance are
>> > > > screwed.
>> > >
>> > > For this question, it is very hard to make a correct format since
>> > > the
>> > > Spec doesn't give a clear definition. Should we have a default
>> > > format,
>> > > if there is conflict, and then add quirk or add a vendor-specific
>> > > table?
>> > >
>> > > Hi Avri
>> > > Do you have a good idea?
>> >
>> > I don't know.  Better let Daejun answer this.
>> > This was working for me for both Galaxy S20 (Exynos) as well as
>> > Xiaomi Mi10
>> > (8250).
>> 
>> As for the endianity issue -
>> I don't think that any fix is needed in the hpb driver.
>> It is readily seen that the ppn from get_ppn, and the one in the upiu
>> cdb (upiu trace) are identical.
>> Therefore, if an issue exist, it is IMHO a device issue.
>> 
>> kworker/u16:10-315   [001] d..2    62.283264: ufshpb_get_ppn: Avri
>> ppn 480d2f8244c21abd
>>   kworker/u16:10-315   [001] d..2    62.283336: ufshcd_upiu: v:1.10
>> send: T:62283314922, HDR:014000000000000000000000,
>> CDB:8800002ddaac480d2f8244c21abd0100, D:
>> 
>> Again, verified on both gs20 (exynos) and mi10 (8250).
>> Thanks,
>> Avri
> 
> 
> Hi Avri,
> Your testing method is no problem, the current problem is in function
> ufshpb_get_ppn().
> 
> 
> +static u64 ufshpb_get_ppn(struct ufshpb_lu *hpb,
> +                         struct ufshpb_map_ctx *mctx, int pos, int
> *error)
> +{
> +       u64 *ppn_table;
> +       struct page *page;
> +       int index, offset;
> +
> +       index = pos / (PAGE_SIZE / HPB_ENTRY_SIZE);
> +       offset = pos % (PAGE_SIZE / HPB_ENTRY_SIZE);
> +
> +       page = mctx->m_page[index];
> +       if (unlikely(!page)) {
> +               *error = -ENOMEM;
> +               dev_err(&hpb->sdev_ufs_lu->sdev_dev,
> +                       "error. cannot find page in mctx\n");
> +               return 0;
> +       }
> +
> +       ppn_table = page_address(page);
> +       if (unlikely(!ppn_table)) {
> +               *error = -ENOMEM;
> +               dev_err(&hpb->sdev_ufs_lu->sdev_dev,
> +                       "error. cannot get ppn_table\n");
> +               return 0;
> +       }
> +
> +       return ppn_table[offset];
> +}
> 
> 
> Say, the UFS device outputs the L2P entry in big-endian, which means
> the most significant byte of an L2P entry will be output firstly, then
> the less significant byte..., let's take an example of one L2P entry:
> 
> 0x 12 34 56 78 90 12 34 56
> 
> 0x12 is the most significant byte, will be store in the lowest address
> in the L2P cache.
> 
> eg,
> 
> F0000008: 1234 5678 9012 3456
> 
> In the ARM based system, If we use "return ppn_table[offset]",
> the original L2P entry 0x1234 5678 9012 3456, will be converted to
> 0x5634 1290 7856 3412. then use put_unaligned_be64(), UFS receive
> unexpected L2P entry(L2P entry miss).
> 
> If the UFS output L2P entry in the big-endian, this is a problem.
> 
> 
> For the UFS outputs L2P entry in little-endian, no problem,
> 
> Because of the L2P entry in the memory:
> 
> F0000008: 5634 1290 7856 3412
> 
> After return ppn_table[offset], L2P entry will be correct L2P entry:
> 
> 0x1234567890123456. then use put_unaligned_be64(), UFS can receive
> expected L2P etnry(L2P entry hit).
> 
> 
> we need to figure out which way is the JEDEC recommended L2P entry
> output endianness. otherwise, two methods co-exist in HPB driver, there
> will confuse customer.
> If you have a look at the JEDEC HPB 2.0, seems the big-endian is
> correct way. This need you and Daejun to double check inside your
> company.
> 

Bean is right, finally you know what I was saying...

We need to fix it before move on - all the UFS3.1 HPB parts which I 
tested
over the last few weeks are screwed due to this... I don't care 
where/how
you want to get it fixed in next version.

In my case, which may not be a valid fix, I simply hack the code as 
below
and it works for me.

-      put_unaligned_be64(ppn, &cdb[6]);
+      memcpy(&cdb[6], &ppn, sizeof(u64));

Thanks,
Can Guo.

> thanks,
> Bean