lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v3 0/5] scsi: ufs: Add Host Performance Booster Support
From
Date
Hi Daejun

On Mon, 2020-06-29 at 15:15 +0900, Daejun Park wrote:
> > Seems you intentionally ignored to give you comments on my
> > suggestion.
> > let me provide the reason.
>
> Sorry! I replied to your comment (
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/15/1492),
> but you didn't reply on that. I thought you agreed because you didn't
> send
> any more comments.
>
>
> > Before submitting your next version patch, please check your L2P
> > mapping HPB reqeust submission logical algorithem. I have did
>
> We are also reviewing the code that you submitted before.
> It seems to be a performance improvement as it sends a map request
> directly.
>
> > performance comparison testing on 4KB, there are about 13%
> > performance
> > drop. Also the hit count is lower. I don't know if this is related
> > to
>
> It is interesting that there is actually a performance improvement.
> Could you share the test environment, please? However, I think
> stability is
> important to HPB driver. We have tested our method with the real
> products and
> the HPB 1.0 driver is based on that.

I just run fio benchmark tool with --rw=randread, --bs=4kb, --
size=8G/10G/64G/100G. and see what performance diff with the direct
submission approach.

> After this patch, your approach can be done as an incremental patch?
> I would
> like to test the patch that you submitted and verify it.
>
> > your current work queue scheduling, since you didn't add the timer
> > for
> > each HPB request.
>

Taking into consideration of the HPB 2.0, can we submit the HPB write
request to the SCSI layer? if not, it will be a direct submission way.
why not directly use direct way? or maybe you have a more advisable
approach to work around this. would you please share with us.
appreciate.


> There was Bart's comment that it was not good add an arbitrary
> timeout value
> to the request. (please refer to:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/11/1043)
> When no timer is added to the request, the SD timout will be set as
> default
> timeout at the block layer.
>

I saw that, so I should add a timer in order to optimise HPB reqeust
scheduling/completition. this is ok so far.

> Thanks,
> Daejun

Thanks,
Bean


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-29 23:03    [W:0.252 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site