[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6eec7c64-d4c1-c76e-5c14-7904a8792275@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 07:56:54 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: daejun7.park@...sung.com, yongmyung lee <ymhungry.lee@...sung.com>,
Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>,
"James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: ALIM AKHTAR <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
"asutoshd@...eaurora.org" <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>,
Zang Leigang <zangleigang@...ilicon.com>,
Avi Shchislowski <Avi.Shchislowski@....com>,
Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
"cang@...eaurora.org" <cang@...eaurora.org>,
"stanley.chu@...iatek.com" <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
MOHAMMED RAFIQ KAMAL BASHA <md.rafiq@...sung.com>,
Sang-yoon Oh <sangyoon.oh@...sung.com>,
Jinyoung CHOI <j-young.choi@...sung.com>,
Adel Choi <adel.choi@...sung.com>,
BoRam Shin <boram.shin@...sung.com>,
Sung-Jun Park <sungjun07.park@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: Another approach of UFSHPB
On 2020-05-24 22:40, Daejun Park wrote:
> The HPB driver is close to the UFS core function, but it is not essential
> for operating UFS device. With reference to this article
> (https://lwn.net/Articles/645810/), we implemented extended UFS-feature
> as bus model. Because the HPB driver consumes the user's main memory, it should
> support bind / unbind functionality as needed. We implemented the HPB driver
> can be unbind / unload on runtime.
I do not agree that the bus model is the best choice for freeing cache
memory if it is no longer needed. A shrinker is probably a much better
choice because the callback functions in a shrinker get invoked when a
system is under memory pressure. See also register_shrinker(),
unregister_shrinker() and struct shrinker in include/linux/shrinker.h.
>> Should these parameters be per module or per UFS device?
>
> I think it is necessary to take parameters for each module.
> This is because each extended UFS-feature module has different functions
> and may require different parameters.
My question was a rhetorical question. Please choose per device
parameters when appropriate instead of module parameters.
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists