[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ec9c378c-fedd-5a90-bb12-085395e0d22e@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 05:48:27 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Stanley Chu <chu.stanley@...il.com>
Cc: Po-Wen Kao <powen.kao@...iatek.com>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
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>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
wsd_upstream@...iatek.com, peter.wang@...iatek.com,
stanley.chu@...iatek.com, alice.chao@...iatek.com,
naomi.chu@...iatek.com, chun-hung.wu@...iatek.com,
cc.chou@...iatek.com, eddie.huang@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] scsi: ufs: core: Introduce mcq ops to config cqid
On 5/30/23 18:54, Stanley Chu wrote:
> In addition, some benchmark data shows that the performance can be
> improved by using fewer CQs to aggregate the interrupt handling of
> completion requests.
What has been measured? IOPS only or both IOPS and latency?
How big is the difference? A few percent or more?
For which number of SQs and which number of CQs has performance data
been measured?
Would the following work instead of introducing a new vop?
- Introduce a new capability flag, e.g. UFSHCD_CAP_SINGLE_CQ.
- Set that flag from inside ufs_mtk_init().
- Modify the UFS core driver such that the number of completion queues
depends on the UFSHCD_CAP_SINGLE_CQ flag.
> Therefore, we would like to introduce a vop to allow the host to
> configure it accordingly.
We do not accept new vops upstream without a user. Where is the
implementation of the new .config_cqid() callback?
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists