[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ef71a41a501f69a6070daa33cbddae25@codeaurora.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:43:32 +0800
From: Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>
To: daejun7.park@...sung.com
Cc: asutoshd@...eaurora.org, nguyenb@...eaurora.org,
hongwus@...eaurora.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com, ALIM AKHTAR <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Kiwoong Kim <kwmad.kim@...sung.com>,
Satya Tangirala <satyat@...gle.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] scsi: ufs: Introduce hba performance monitor sysfs
nodes
On 2021-04-06 13:37, Can Guo wrote:
> Hi Daejun,
>
> On 2021-04-06 12:11, Daejun Park wrote:
>> Hi Can Guo,
>>
>>> +static ssize_t monitor_enable_store(struct device *dev,
>>> + struct device_attribute *attr,
>>> + const char *buf, size_t count)
>>> +{
>>> + struct ufs_hba *hba = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>> + unsigned long value, flags;
>>> +
>>> + if (kstrtoul(buf, 0, &value))
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> + value = !!value;
>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
>>> + if (value == hba->monitor.enabled)
>>> + goto out_unlock;
>>> +
>>> + if (!value) {
>>> + memset(&hba->monitor, 0, sizeof(hba->monitor));
>>> + } else {
>>> + hba->monitor.enabled = true;
>>> + hba->monitor.enabled_ts = ktime_get();
>>
>> How about setting lat_max to and lat_min to KTIME_MAX and 0?
>
> lat_min is already 0. What is the benefit of setting lat_max to
> KTIME_MAX?
>
>> I think lat_sum should be 0 at this point.
>
> lat_sum is already 0 at this point, what is the problem?
>
>>
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> +out_unlock:
>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(hba->host->host_lock, flags);
>>> + return count;
>>> +}
>>
>>
>>> +static void ufshcd_update_monitor(struct ufs_hba *hba, struct
>>> ufshcd_lrb *lrbp)
>>> +{
>>> + int dir = ufshcd_monitor_opcode2dir(*lrbp->cmd->cmnd);
>>> +
>>> + if (dir >= 0 && hba->monitor.nr_queued[dir] > 0) {
>>> + struct request *req = lrbp->cmd->request;
>>> + struct ufs_hba_monitor *m = &hba->monitor;
>>> + ktime_t now, inc, lat;
>>> +
>>> + now = ktime_get();
>>
>> How about using lrbp->compl_time_stamp instead of getting new value?
>
> I am expecting "now" keeps increasing and use it to update
> m->busy_start_s,
> but if I use lrbp->compl_time_stamp to do that, below line ktime_sub()
> may
> give me an unexpected value as lrbp->compl_time_stamp may be smaller
> than
> m->busy_start_ts, because the actual requests are not completed by the
> device
> in the exact same ordering as the bits set in hba->outstanding_tasks,
> but driver
> is completing them from bit 0 to bit 31 in ascending order.
Sorry, I missunderstood your point... Yes, we can use
lrbp->compl_time_stamp.
Thanks,
Can Guo.
>
>>
>>> + inc = ktime_sub(now, m->busy_start_ts[dir]);
>>> + m->total_busy[dir] = ktime_add(m->total_busy[dir],
>>> inc);
>>> + m->nr_sec_rw[dir] += blk_rq_sectors(req);
>>> +
>>> + /* Update latencies */
>>> + m->nr_req[dir]++;
>>> + lat = ktime_sub(now, lrbp->issue_time_stamp);
>>> + m->lat_sum[dir] += lat;
>>> + if (m->lat_max[dir] < lat || !m->lat_max[dir])
>>> + m->lat_max[dir] = lat;
>>> + if (m->lat_min[dir] > lat || !m->lat_min[dir])
>>> + m->lat_min[dir] = lat;
>>
>> This if statement can be shorted, by setting lat_max / lat_min as
>> default value.
>
> I don't quite get it, can you show me the code sample?
>
> Thanks,
> Can Guo
>
>>
>>> +
>>> + m->nr_queued[dir]--;
>>> + /* Push forward the busy start of monitor */
>>> + m->busy_start_ts[dir] = now;
>>> + }
>>> +}
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Daejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists