lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 23:05:37 -0400 From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com> To: Suganath Prabu Subramani <suganath-prabu.subramani@...adcom.com> Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, Sathya Prakash <Sathya.Prakash@...adcom.com>, Kashyap Desai <kashyap.desai@...adcom.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Chaitra Basappa <chaitra.basappa@...adcom.com>, Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@...adcom.com>, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/14] mpt3sas driver NVMe support: Hi Suganath, > Theoretically we want to use h/w capability (to translate IEEE to PRP) > for smaller IO size to leverage h/w capability. Nobody says we have to use the capability just because the hardware has it. Unlike some other operating systems, Linux will only submit I/Os to the driver that conform to the reported underlying constraints of the hardware. I fail to understand how letting the HBA firmware translate an SGL to a PRP for a subset of I/Os could do anything but add latency. Plus complexity in the hot path of the driver. > - If the unmap translation in firmware is slow, why don't you translate > WRITE SAME/w UNMAP set to DSM DEALLOCATE without requiring > applications to do encapsulated passthrough? > => As of now, current FW supports UNMAP command but not WRITE_SAME for > NVME drive. We did some experiment to convert UMAP command in driver, > but that is not really giving any performance improvement. It is imperative that the common use case, Linux' discard infrastructure, is working correctly and is as performant as any application-driven passthrough workaround. Unlike SCSI-to-SATA translation you have the benefit of a 1:1 mapping between UNMAP and DEALLOCATE. I'm not even sure why there would be a significant performance penalty in the firmware? > We would like to continue with UNMAP (and all other non-read/write > commands) to be handled in FW. And yet patch 4 circumvents that statement by adding support for encapsulated commands to bypass the FW translation... -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
Powered by blists - more mailing lists