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 53BB9C433E1 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 21:02:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33B0020720 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 21:02:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="ia0B667J" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388218AbgF2VCl (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jun 2020 17:02:41 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:43358 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731160AbgF2TMt (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:12:49 -0400 Received: from mail-ej1-x641.google.com (mail-ej1-x641.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::641]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92B7AC0076FA; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 04:25:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-x641.google.com with SMTP id i14so16179619ejr.9; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 04:25:07 -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=twf//RldOgxncn/3LQYhKedjeWngP2CVDq9dznPpIUk=; b=ia0B667JCeMfjKiPdQMBP0fMuEfSykAiIMFO+nrs7Pmddd/ia1zR2kPh+1UFtZc0rG N6qrMQw1C7z1U6hvpQaipSEvu86uiL+36eRWfxGqQNZeJgJJ92Rv55XSP2NtBiOvVcef uo9yG9cSC9lvt8rQTjwqoV2Dx0tpdCRombUjjZ9IwJDIYcs8oA2Z2i5Re/djcpSbDjwj 3DFzET9jfqVRkKOFa5V553mJt3Eagb6xNbJ1enwHaq/Qk84wZx50eIZrNXU3eMIf2Thl QxKpZrS4EAgUMrGNA/tvphCPLrJE+EcUpIqagaDBatXoSNPNJH/KwoVpwBbF7Vf+v3hD tkAQ== 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=twf//RldOgxncn/3LQYhKedjeWngP2CVDq9dznPpIUk=; b=U89Fg3P9o4gNQZTrPSTXrIaNWx7J5TPQZ3qcWfwngTZCy/kg5Gtf4YZkwhsrOKf2wK APcGIdZmcmSfBN2l1zVFWR33/P5xWTdJb5Pb0MCMeFuBtbDQ5FqfElGor5R45r0XCn8f BhBmvEDEIWNObATW+owurgS8H/Y4qzrb6lKYGUgIx2kUaJsPrqffUsLjIa6wdDmtdLvS tJlb4OXONH8aDiRb0gKI3qa6+Za8WUxzdy4p14EeLqUtRxekhGEy1NCbRsYavL6txmFC WN/dNVSVR1shiUvk8z+xSf5Gc9Tt75qZV4WveOTiilRMbn2Aw/nlXsL+M7W4ZxKkx/vB KXmA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533YVANxZrkkIIpFvZZytSV3yx0p6VM7LLkYnTjZPZQQvuOKeGQP ztEjGw+hBkff7IiDhAe6Dvs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxfzBjp+rimy0f7Lsn2I1LIphbpq0jKdNkGT5Lrev5SL2F7eby0iO+T+MDFBcn6vVKMgBzuLg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:f2c1:: with SMTP id gz1mr14020443ejb.88.1593429906122; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 04:25:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ubuntu-laptop ([2a01:598:b88e:dd15:40fc:c0bc:1cfd:2755]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id f17sm12039192ejr.71.2020.06.29.04.25.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 29 Jun 2020 04:25:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <60647cf00d9db6818488a714b48b9b6e2a1eb728.camel@gmail.com> 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: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 13:25:03 +0200 In-Reply-To: <336371513.41593411482259.JavaMail.epsvc@epcpadp2> References: <948f573d136b39410f7d610e5019aafc9c04fe62.camel@gmail.com> <963815509.21592879582091.JavaMail.epsvc@epcpadp2> <336371513.41593411482259.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 Hi Daejun 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://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/15/1492), > 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. > 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. > There was Bart's comment that it was not good add an arbitrary > timeout value > to the request. (please refer to: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/11/1043) > When no timer is added to the request, the SD timout will be set as > default > timeout at the block layer. > I saw that, so I should add a timer in order to optimise HPB reqeust scheduling/completition. this is ok so far. > Thanks, > Daejun Thanks, Bean