linux-scsi.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
To: daejun7.park@samsung.com
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	avri.altman@wdc.com, jejb@linux.ibm.com,
	martin.petersen@oracle.com, asutoshd@codeaurora.org,
	stanley.chu@mediatek.com, bvanassche@acm.org, huobean@gmail.com,
	ALIM AKHTAR <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	JinHwan Park <jh.i.park@samsung.com>,
	Javier Gonzalez <javier.gonz@samsung.com>,
	SEUNGUK SHIN <seunguk.shin@samsung.com>,
	Sung-Jun Park <sungjun07.park@samsung.com>,
	Jinyoung CHOI <j-young.choi@samsung.com>,
	BoRam Shin <boram.shin@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v29 4/4] scsi: ufs: Add HPB 2.0 support
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 10:45:40 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <79aea8a80c1be2ff7f05683c2f4918ce@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210317014253epcms2p1f45db6a281645282e1540e0070999d73@epcms2p1>

On 2021-03-17 09:42, Daejun Park wrote:
>> On 2021-03-15 15:23, Can Guo wrote:
>>> On 2021-03-15 15:07, Daejun Park wrote:
>>>>>> This patch supports the HPB 2.0.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The HPB 2.0 supports read of varying sizes from 4KB to 512KB.
>>>>>> In the case of Read (<= 32KB) is supported as single HPB read.
>>>>>> In the case of Read (36KB ~ 512KB) is supported by as a 
>>>>>> combination
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> write buffer command and HPB read command to deliver more PPN.
>>>>>> The write buffer commands may not be issued immediately due to 
>>>>>> busy
>>>>>> tags.
>>>>>> To use HPB read more aggressively, the driver can requeue the 
>>>>>> write
>>>>>> buffer
>>>>>> command. The requeue threshold is implemented as timeout and can 
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> modified with requeue_timeout_ms entry in sysfs.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daejun Park <daejun7.park@samsung.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> +static struct attribute *hpb_dev_param_attrs[] = {
>>>>>> +        &dev_attr_requeue_timeout_ms.attr,
>>>>>> +        NULL,
>>>>>> +};
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +struct attribute_group ufs_sysfs_hpb_param_group = {
>>>>>> +        .name = "hpb_param_sysfs",
>>>>>> +        .attrs = hpb_dev_param_attrs,
>>>>>> +};
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +static int ufshpb_pre_req_mempool_init(struct ufshpb_lu *hpb)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +        struct ufshpb_req *pre_req = NULL;
>>>>>> +        int qd = hpb->sdev_ufs_lu->queue_depth / 2;
>>>>>> +        int i, j;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +        INIT_LIST_HEAD(&hpb->lh_pre_req_free);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +        hpb->pre_req = kcalloc(qd, sizeof(struct ufshpb_req),
>>>>>> GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>> +        hpb->throttle_pre_req = qd;
>>>>>> +        hpb->num_inflight_pre_req = 0;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +        if (!hpb->pre_req)
>>>>>> +                goto release_mem;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +        for (i = 0; i < qd; i++) {
>>>>>> +                pre_req = hpb->pre_req + i;
>>>>>> +                INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pre_req->list_req);
>>>>>> +                pre_req->req = NULL;
>>>>>> +                pre_req->bio = NULL;
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why don't prepare bio as same as wb.m_page? Won't that save more 
>>>>> time
>>>>> for ufshpb_issue_pre_req()?
>>>> 
>>>> It is pre_req pool. So although we prepare bio at this time, it just
>>>> only for first pre_req.
>>> 
>>> I meant removing the bio_alloc() in ufshpb_issue_pre_req() and
>>> bio_put()
>>> in ufshpb_pre_req_compl_fn(). bios, in pre_req's case, just hold a
>>> page.
>>> So, prepare 16 (if queue depth is 32) bios here, just use them along
>>> with
>>> wb.m_page and call bio_reset() in ufshpb_pre_req_compl_fn(). Shall it
>>> work?
>>> 
>> 
>> If it works, you can even have the bio_add_pc_page() called here. 
>> Later
>> in
>> ufshpb_execute_pre_req(), you don't need to call
>> ufshpb_pre_req_add_bio_page(),
>> just call ufshpb_prep_entry() once instead - it save many repeated 
>> steps
>> for a
>> pre_req, and you don't even need to call bio_reset() in this case, 
>> since
>> for a
>> bio, nothing changes after it is binded with a specific page...
> 
> Hi, Can Guo
> 
> I tried the idea that you suggested, but it doesn't work properly.
> This optimization should be done next time for enhancement.

Can you elaborate please? Any error seen?

Per my understanding, in the case for pre_reqs, a bio is no different
from a page. Here it can reserve 16 pages for later use, which can be
done the same for bios.

This is not an enhancement, but a doubt - why not? Unless it is not 
doable.

Thanks,
Can Guo.

> 
> Thanks
> Daejun
> 
>> Can Guo.
>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Can Guo.
>>> 
>>>> After use it, it should be prepared bio at issue phase.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Daejun
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Can Guo.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +                pre_req->wb.m_page = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL |
>>>>>> __GFP_ZERO);
>>>>>> +                if (!pre_req->wb.m_page) {
>>>>>> +                        for (j = 0; j < i; j++)
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> __free_page(hpb->pre_req[j].wb.m_page);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +                        goto release_mem;
>>>>>> +                }
>>>>>> +                list_add_tail(&pre_req->list_req,
>>>>>> &hpb->lh_pre_req_free);
>>>>>> +        }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +        return 0;
>>>>>> +release_mem:
>>>>>> +        kfree(hpb->pre_req);
>>>>>> +        return -ENOMEM;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

  reply	other threads:[~2021-03-17  2:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <CGME20210315012850epcms2p361447b689e925561c48aa9ca54434eb5@epcms2p3>
2021-03-15  1:28 ` [PATCH v29 0/4] scsi: ufs: Add Host Performance Booster Support Daejun Park
2021-03-15  1:29   ` [PATCH v29 1/4] scsi: ufs: Introduce HPB feature Daejun Park
2021-03-15  1:30   ` [PATCH v29 2/4] scsi: ufs: L2P map management for HPB read Daejun Park
2021-03-15  1:30   ` [PATCH v29 3/4] scsi: ufs: Prepare HPB read for cached sub-region Daejun Park
2021-03-15  1:31   ` [PATCH v29 4/4] scsi: ufs: Add HPB 2.0 support Daejun Park
2021-03-15  5:05     ` Can Guo
2021-03-15  7:07       ` Daejun Park
2021-03-15  7:23         ` Can Guo
2021-03-15  7:47           ` Can Guo
2021-03-17  1:42             ` Daejun Park
2021-03-17  2:45               ` Can Guo [this message]
2021-03-18  2:02                 ` Daejun Park
2021-03-18  2:25                   ` Can Guo
2021-03-18  2:29                     ` Daejun Park
2021-03-18  4:49                   ` Can Guo
2021-03-18  7:13                     ` Daejun Park
2021-03-15  6:36     ` Can Guo
2021-03-21 10:05     ` Avri Altman
2021-03-22  0:50       ` Daejun Park

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=79aea8a80c1be2ff7f05683c2f4918ce@codeaurora.org \
    --to=cang@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=alim.akhtar@samsung.com \
    --cc=asutoshd@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=avri.altman@wdc.com \
    --cc=boram.shin@samsung.com \
    --cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
    --cc=daejun7.park@samsung.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=huobean@gmail.com \
    --cc=j-young.choi@samsung.com \
    --cc=javier.gonz@samsung.com \
    --cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=jh.i.park@samsung.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=seunguk.shin@samsung.com \
    --cc=stanley.chu@mediatek.com \
    --cc=sungjun07.park@samsung.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).