linux-kernel - RE:(2) [PATCH] scsi: ufs: core: fix devfreq deadlocks

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20230106022456epcms2p784b3cf9115f6b170bdef0732258381ba@epcms2p7>
Date:   Fri, 06 Jan 2023 11:24:56 +0900
From:   Jinyoung CHOI <j-young.choi@...sung.com>
To:     Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        Asutosh Das <quic_asutoshd@...cinc.com>
CC:     Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        ALIM AKHTAR <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Can Guo <quic_cang@...cinc.com>
Subject: RE:(2) [PATCH] scsi: ufs: core: fix devfreq deadlocks

>> On 1/4/23 06:10, Asutosh Das wrote:
>> > Load based toggling of WB seemed fine to me then.
>> > I haven't thought about another method to toggle WriteBooster yet.
>> > Let me see if I can come up with something.
>> > IMT if you have a mechanism in mind, please let me know.
>> 
>> Hi Asutosh,
>> 
>> Which UFS devices need this mechanism? All UFS devices I'm familiar with can
>> achieve wire speed for large write requests without enabling the WriteBooster.
>This feature assures SLC-performance for writes to the WriteBooster buffer.
>So enabling it is advantageous as far as write performance.

I agree with you. Also, it can be used in various ways.

>As for the toggling functionality, compared to e.g. enabling it on init and leave it on,
>some flash vendors require it because of device health considerations.
>This is not the case for us, so let others to comment.

In our case, it does not matter whether to toggle or not.
To make the code simple, it seems to be a good way to enable it on init and leave it on.
Considering device health, WB can be disabled through lifetime check.

Thanks,
Jinyoung.

>
>Thanks,
>Avri
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Bart.