lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [30]   [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
On Tue, 2020-06-30 at 10:05 +0900, Daejun Park wrote:
> > Hi Bean,
> > > 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://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=be575021-e3854728-be56db6e-0cc47a31cdf8-6c7d0e1e42762b92&q=1&u=https%3A%2F%2Flkml.org%2Flkml%2F2020%2F6%2F15%2F1492
> > > > ),
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > I am considering a direct submission way for the next version.
> > We will implement the write buffer command of HPB 2.0, after patching
> > HPB 1.0.
> >
> > As for the direct submission of HPB releated command including HPB
> > write
> > buffer, I think we'd better discuss the right approach in depth
> > before
> > moving on to the next step.
> >
>
> Hi Daejun
> If you need reference code, you can freely copy my code from my RFC v3
> patchset. or if you need my side testing support, just let me, I can
> help you test your code.
>
It will be good example code for developing HPB 2.0.

Thanks,
Daejun

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-07-01 02:48    [W:0.141 / U:0.992 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site