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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B54EC77B7A for ; Wed, 31 May 2023 12:50:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235967AbjEaMuF (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2023 08:50:05 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45886 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235985AbjEaMtY (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2023 08:49:24 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-f47.google.com (mail-io1-f47.google.com [209.85.166.47]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D89910C6; Wed, 31 May 2023 05:48:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-f47.google.com with SMTP id ca18e2360f4ac-77496b0b345so150008439f.3; Wed, 31 May 2023 05:48:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1685537309; x=1688129309; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=xqGnCPChL19fXfFgwza4KZGrYtNeSBi3Wbd7oMZ8AFA=; b=JxzsD3gmjS9QfK89JENp4pLAKtR3Cl9RqvjfLqmvJHDUUhFJhOiCm6Z/DmxRSYdXUo vtwSdFuAqoH74xfd+ZHLcnWrSl6qqNiIvrkQHT1vTXVYI5mx+lcLmJT59JZXJ70c+Rdp oa5nrvvzOmIA1+g3IN9WBro2W4O3yBNJSOyXAxRaKE20hSRfHzgZ/smzMzGs56eOD98q 2TKbQ8pvNWZ+z/204CDzDRW3m5hWt5QyCu6eQWJE3aT/PqopGs0nVPL8oZKhKbcG0Slp m4jBX0vlNZ5UJj5dKWfIhelcCEkUCJLXf/V+Qaq6dVdcCxZTtdNGo7XG1Uhgo3oL44fF 9hoA== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDyGZgxpefHh+NahFUxmzi14Pnqc53LeC646yzkbRvZDLynnNUtg 0NedC6dhUJhSmHm6T9Otf+U= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4R4uX8mr/AZ2HXFs3fevTI77W0Xf8YIKy1DNJDCRdolpMdohmafLKGMFXSOzxIB2JLuXEyKQ== X-Received: by 2002:a6b:d914:0:b0:769:a826:2818 with SMTP id r20-20020a6bd914000000b00769a8262818mr4531978ioc.16.1685537308401; Wed, 31 May 2023 05:48:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.51.14] ([98.51.102.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c12-20020aa7880c000000b00646ebc77b1fsm3295119pfo.75.2023.05.31.05.48.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 31 May 2023 05:48:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 05:48:27 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] scsi: ufs: core: Introduce mcq ops to config cqid Content-Language: en-US To: Stanley Chu Cc: Po-Wen Kao , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, Alim Akhtar , Avri Altman , "James E.J. Bottomley" , "Martin K. Petersen" , Matthias Brugger , AngeloGioacchino Del Regno , wsd_upstream@mediatek.com, peter.wang@mediatek.com, stanley.chu@mediatek.com, alice.chao@mediatek.com, naomi.chu@mediatek.com, chun-hung.wu@mediatek.com, cc.chou@mediatek.com, eddie.huang@mediatek.com References: <20230530023227.16653-1-powen.kao@mediatek.com> <20230530023227.16653-2-powen.kao@mediatek.com> <1c182151-6e8c-5068-b38c-f8e842e6e13b@acm.org> From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On 5/30/23 18:54, Stanley Chu wrote: > In addition, some benchmark data shows that the performance can be > improved by using fewer CQs to aggregate the interrupt handling of > completion requests. What has been measured? IOPS only or both IOPS and latency? How big is the difference? A few percent or more? For which number of SQs and which number of CQs has performance data been measured? Would the following work instead of introducing a new vop? - Introduce a new capability flag, e.g. UFSHCD_CAP_SINGLE_CQ. - Set that flag from inside ufs_mtk_init(). - Modify the UFS core driver such that the number of completion queues depends on the UFSHCD_CAP_SINGLE_CQ flag. > Therefore, we would like to introduce a vop to allow the host to > configure it accordingly. We do not accept new vops upstream without a user. Where is the implementation of the new .config_cqid() callback? Thanks, Bart.