[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d4ff8e1a-f368-6720-798a-a2a31a4d41fb@codeaurora.org>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 18:34:04 -0700
From: "Asutosh Das (asd)" <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>, nguyenb@...eaurora.org,
hongwus@...eaurora.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com
Cc: Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.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>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.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>,
"moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support"
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] scsi: ufs: Optimize host lock on transfer requests
send/compl paths
On 5/24/2021 1:10 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 5/24/21 1:36 AM, Can Guo wrote:
>> Current UFS IRQ handler is completely wrapped by host lock, and because
>> ufshcd_send_command() is also protected by host lock, when IRQ handler
>> fires, not only the CPU running the IRQ handler cannot send new requests,
>> the rest CPUs can neither. Move the host lock wrapping the IRQ handler into
>> specific branches, i.e., ufshcd_uic_cmd_compl(), ufshcd_check_errors(),
>> ufshcd_tmc_handler() and ufshcd_transfer_req_compl(). Meanwhile, to further
>> reduce occpuation of host lock in ufshcd_transfer_req_compl(), host lock is
>> no longer required to call __ufshcd_transfer_req_compl(). As per test, the
>> optimization can bring considerable gain to random read/write performance.
>
> An additional question is whether it is necessary for v3.0 UFS devices
> to serialize the submission path against the completion path? Multiple
> high-performance SCSI LLDs support hardware with separate submission and
> completion queues and hence do not need any serialization between the
> submission and the completion path. I'm asking this because it is likely
> that sooner or later multiqueue support will be added in the UFS
> specification. Benefiting from multiqueue support will require to rework
> locking in the UFS driver anyway.
>
Hi Bart,
No it's not necessary to serialize both the paths. I think this series
attempts to remove this serialization to a certain degree, which is
what's giving the performance improvement.
Even if multiqueue support would be available in the future, I think
this change is apt now for the current available specification.
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
>
Thanks,
-asd
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Powered by blists - more mailing lists