linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] scsi: ufs: UFS Host Performance Booster(HPB) driver

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 25 Apr 2020 10:51:52 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>,
        "huobean@...il.com" <huobean@...il.com>,
        "alim.akhtar@...sung.com" <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        "asutoshd@...eaurora.org" <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>,
        "jejb@...ux.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "stanley.chu@...iatek.com" <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
        "beanhuo@...ron.com" <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
        "tomas.winkler@...el.com" <tomas.winkler@...el.com>,
        "cang@...eaurora.org" <cang@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] scsi: ufs: UFS Host Performance Booster(HPB)
 driver

On 2020-04-25 01:59, Avri Altman wrote:
> One last word for the community members that are not into ufs day-to-day:
> 
> HPB implementation made its first public appearance around 2018 as part of Google's Pixel3 and some VIVO models.
> Since then, more and more mobile platforms are publically using HPB: Galaxy Note10,
> Galaxy S20 and VIVO NEX3 (that is already using HPB2.0), some Xiaomi models etc.
> 
> On the other hand, HPB1.0 spec was just recently closed - not even as part of UFS3.1,
> but only after - about 2 months ago. The industry is rushing forward, we've seen this many times.
> 
> The fact is that HPB is here to stay - either as a horde of out-of-tree implementations,
> or as a standard acceptable mainline driver.

Hi Avri,

Thanks for the additional clarification. I think we need HPB support in
the upstream kernel. A possible approach is to start a discussion about
how to integrate HPB support in the upstream kernel and to defer posting
new implementations until agreement about an approach has been achieved.
Is there e.g. an alternative for avoiding deadlocks other than using the
blk-mq reserved tag feature for the commands that manage the L2P tables?

Thanks,

Bart.