[lkml]   [2011]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] request: teach the device more intelligent
On 2011-08-10 01:43, Kyungmin Park wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Jens Axboe <> wrote:
>> On 2011-08-09 05:47, Kyungmin Park wrote:
>>> Hi Jens
>>> Now eMMC device requires the upper layer information to improve the data
>>> performance and reliability.
>>> . Context ID
>>> Using the context information, it can sort out the data internally and improve the performance.
>>> The main problem is that it's needed to define "What's the context".
>>> Actually I expect cfq queue has own unique ID but it doesn't so decide to use the pid instead
>>> . Data Tag
>>> Using the Data Tag (1-bit information), It writes the data at SLC area when it's hot data. So it can make the chip more reliable.
>>> First I expect the REQ_META but current ext4 doesn't pass the WRITE_META. only use the READ_META. so it needs to investigate it.
>>> With these characteristics, it's helpful to teach the device. After some consideration. it's needed to pass out these information at request data structure.
>>> Can you give your opinions and does it proper fields at requests?
>> You need this to work on all IO schedulers, not just cfq.
> Of course if the concept is acceptable, I'll add the other IO schedulers also.
>> And since that's the case, there's no need to add this field since you can just
>> retrieve it if the driver asks for it. For CFQ, it could look like this:
>> static int cfq_foo(struct request *rq)
>> {
>> struct cfq_queue *cfqq = rq->elevator_private[1];
>> if (cfqq)
>> return cfqq->pid;
>> return -1;
>> }
> The actual user of these information is device driver. e.g.,
> drivers/mmc/card/block.c
> So it's not good to use cfq data structure at D/D. some time later
> these are also used at scsi device drivers.

No, what I'm suggesting above is the CFQ implementation. You would need
to wire up an elv_ops->get_foo() and have the IO schedulers fill it in.
If you notice, the above function does not take or output anything
related to CFQ in particular, it'll just return you the unique key you

It's either the above, or a field in the request that the schedulers
fill out. However, it'd be somewhat annoying to grow struct request for
something that has a narrow scope of use. Hence the suggestion to add a
strategy helper for this.

>> As to the hot part, I think that would be better as just a request flag
>> like eg the meta flag.
> Yes it can use the JBD_flags at cfq. but same reason it's not proper
> reference at device drivers. that's reason to make a filed at request.
> Device driver should or must see the request data structure and don't
> refer the upper layer data structures.

The device driver sees the struct request, which is where this flag ends

Jens Axboe

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-08-10 10:11    [W:0.103 / U:4.056 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site