[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c9b71fcb1f072dcf55f3e13da6dd8ccc145d7c74.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 13:39:42 +0200
From: Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com>
To: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>,
"daejun7.park@...sung.com" <daejun7.park@...sung.com>,
"jejb@...ux.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"asutoshd@...eaurora.org" <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>,
"stanley.chu@...iatek.com" <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
"cang@...eaurora.org" <cang@...eaurora.org>,
"bvanassche@....org" <bvanassche@....org>,
"tomas.winkler@...el.com" <tomas.winkler@...el.com>,
ALIM AKHTAR <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>
Cc: "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sang-yoon Oh <sangyoon.oh@...sung.com>,
Sung-Jun Park <sungjun07.park@...sung.com>,
yongmyung lee <ymhungry.lee@...sung.com>,
Jinyoung CHOI <j-young.choi@...sung.com>,
Adel Choi <adel.choi@...sung.com>,
BoRam Shin <boram.shin@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/5] scsi: ufs: Add Host Performance Booster
Support
On Mon, 2020-06-29 at 11:06 +0000, Avri Altman wrote:
> >
> > Hi Avri
> >
> > On Mon, 2020-06-29 at 05:24 +0000, Avri Altman wrote:
> > > Hi Bean,
> > > >
> > > > Hi Daejun
> > > >
> > > > Seems you intentionally ignored to give you comments on my
> > > > suggestion.
> > > > let me provide the reason.
> > > >
> > > > Before submitting your next version patch, please check your
> > > > L2P
> > > > mapping HPB reqeust submission logical algorithem. I have did
> > > > performance comparison testing on 4KB, there are about 13%
> > > > performance
> > > > drop. Also the hit count is lower. I don't know if this is
> > > > related
> > > > to
> > > > your current work queue scheduling, since you didn't add the
> > > > timer
> > > > for
> > > > each HPB request.
> > >
> > > In device control mode, the various decisions,
> > > and specifically those that are causing repetitive evictions,
> > > are made by the device.
> > > Is this the issue that you are referring to?
> > >
> >
> > For this device mode, if HPB mapping table of the active region
> > becomes
> > dirty in the UFS device side, there is repetitive inactive rsp, but
> > it
> > is not the reason for the condition I mentioned here.
> >
> > > As for the driver, do you see any issue that is causing
> > > unnecessary
> > > latency?
> > >
> >
> > In Daejun's patch, it now uses work_queue, and as long there is new
> > RSP of
> > thesubregion to be activated, the driver will queue "work" to this
> > work
> > queue, actually, this is deferred work. we don't know when it will
> > be
> > scheduled/finished. we need to optimize it.
>
> But those "to-do" lists are checked on every completion interrupt and
> on every resume.
> Do you see any scenario in which the "to-be-activated" or "to-be-
> inactivate" work is getting starved?
>
let me run more testing cases, will back to you if there is new
updates.
Thanks,
Bean
Powered by blists - more mailing lists