[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DM6PR04MB657573102C577230A3079DBBFC9F9@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 08:20:20 +0000
From: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
To: "daejun7.park@...sung.com" <daejun7.park@...sung.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"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>,
"huobean@...il.com" <huobean@...il.com>,
ALIM AKHTAR <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
Javier Gonzalez <javier.gonz@...sung.com>
CC: "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
JinHwan Park <jh.i.park@...sung.com>,
SEUNGUK SHIN <seunguk.shin@...sung.com>,
Sung-Jun Park <sungjun07.park@...sung.com>,
yongmyung lee <ymhungry.lee@...sung.com>,
Jinyoung CHOI <j-young.choi@...sung.com>,
BoRam Shin <boram.shin@...sung.com>
Subject: RE: RE: [PATCH v22 4/4] scsi: ufs: Add HPB 2.0 support
>
> > > @@ -2656,7 +2656,12 @@ static int ufshcd_queuecommand(struct
> Scsi_Host
> > > *host, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
> > >
> > > lrbp->req_abort_skip = false;
> > >
> > > - ufshpb_prep(hba, lrbp);
> > > + err = ufshpb_prep(hba, lrbp);
> > > + if (err == -EAGAIN) {
> > > + lrbp->cmd = NULL;
> > > + ufshcd_release(hba);
> > > + goto out;
> > > + }
> > Did I miss-read it, or are you bailing out of wb failed e.g. because no tag is
> available?
> > Why not continue with read10?
>
> We try to sending HPB read several times within the requeue_timeout_ms.
> Because it strategy has more benefit for overall performance in this
> situation that many requests are queueing.
This extra logic, IMO, should be optional. Default none.
And yes, in this case requeue_timeout should be a parameter for each OEM to scale.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists