linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 0/3] scsi: ufs: Add Host Performance Booster Support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Mon, 7 Dec 2020 19:36:09 +0100
From:   Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Daejun Park <daejun7.park@...sung.com>,
        "avri.altman@....com" <avri.altman@....com>,
        "jejb@...ux.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "asutoshd@...eaurora.org" <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>,
        "beanhuo@...ron.com" <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
        "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>,
        "gregkh@...gle.com" <gregkh@...gle.com>,
        "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>,
        SEUNGUK SHIN <seunguk.shin@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 0/3] scsi: ufs: Add Host Performance Booster Support

On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 07:35:03PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 06:26:03PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 07:23:12PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > What "real workload" test can be run on this to help show if it is
> > > useful or not?  These vendors seem to think it helps for some reason,
> > > otherwise they wouldn't have added it to their silicon :)
> > > 
> > > Should they run fio?  If so, any hints on a config that would be good to
> > > show any performance increases?
> > 
> > A real actual workload that matters.  Then again that was Martins
> > request to even justify it.  I don't think the broken addressing that
> > breaks a whole in the SCSI addressing has absolutely not business being
> > supported in Linux ever.  The vendors should have thought about the
> > design before committing transistors to something that fundamentally
> > does not make sense.
> 
> So "time to boot an android system with this enabled and disabled" would
> be a valid workload, right?  I'm guessing that's what the vendors here
> actually care about, otherwise there is no real stress-test on a UFS
> system that I know of.

Oh, and "supporting stupid hardware specs" is what we do here all the
time, you know that :)

If someone is foolish enough to build it, we usually have to support the
thing, especially if someone else here is willing to do that.  I don't
see where the addressing is "broken", which patch causes that to happen?

thanks,

greg k-h