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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 13:12:31 +0900 From: Daejun Park <daejun7.park@...sung.com> To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com> CC: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Daejun Park <daejun7.park@...sung.com>, "avri.altman@....com" <avri.altman@....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: Re: [PATCH v13 0/3] scsi: ufs: Add Host Performance Booster Support > > On Mon, 2020-12-07 at 19:35 +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. > > > > Actually, that's not the way it works: vendors add commands because > > standards mandate. That's why people who want weird commands go and > > join standard committees. Unfortunately this means that a lot of the > > commands the standard mandates end up not being very useful in > > practice. For instance in SCSI we really only implement a fraction of > > the commands in the standard. > > > > In this case, the industry already tried a very similar approach with > > GEN 1 hybrid drives and it turned into a complete disaster, which is > > why the mode became optional in shingle drives and much better modes, > > which didn't have the huge shared state problem, superseded it. Plus > > truncating the LBA of a READ 16 to 4 bytes is asking for capacity > > problems down the line, so even the actual implementation seems to be > > problematic. > > > > All in all, this looks like a short term fix which will go away when > > the drive capacity improves and thus all the effort changing the driver > > will eventually be wasted. > > "short term" in the embedded world means "this device is stuck with this > chip for the next 8 years", it's not like a storage device you can > replace, so this might be different than the shingle drive mess. Also, > I see many old SoCs still showing up in brand new devices many many > years after they were first introduced, on-chip storage controllers is > something we need to support well if we don't want to see huge > out-of-tree patchsets like UFS traditionally has been lugging around for > many years. > > > > 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. > > > > Um, does it? I don't believe even the UFS people have claimed this. > > The problem is that HPB creates a shared state between the driver and > > the device. That shared state has to be populated, which has to happen > > at start of day, so it's entirely unclear if this is a win or a slow > > down for boot. > > Ok, showing that this actually matters is a good rule, Daejun, can you > provide that if you resubmit this patchset? > Sure, I will find out the case which has performance benefit by HPB. Thanks, Daejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists