Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/5] scsi: ufs: Add UFS-feature layer
Reply-To: daejun7.park@samsung.com
From:   Daejun Park <daejun7.park@samsung.com>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        Daejun Park <daejun7.park@samsung.com>,
        ALIM AKHTAR <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
        "avri.altman@wdc.com" <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
        "jejb@linux.ibm.com" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "martin.petersen@oracle.com" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        "asutoshd@codeaurora.org" <asutoshd@codeaurora.org>,
        "beanhuo@micron.com" <beanhuo@micron.com>,
        "stanley.chu@mediatek.com" <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>,
        "cang@codeaurora.org" <cang@codeaurora.org>,
        "tomas.winkler@intel.com" <tomas.winkler@intel.com>
CC:     "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sang-yoon Oh <sangyoon.oh@samsung.com>,
        Sung-Jun Park <sungjun07.park@samsung.com>,
        yongmyung lee <ymhungry.lee@samsung.com>,
        Jinyoung CHOI <j-young.choi@samsung.com>,
        Adel Choi <adel.choi@samsung.com>,
        BoRam Shin <boram.shin@samsung.com>
In-Reply-To: <1319810e-a323-c022-5e27-902f88cefe8f@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20200612022759epcms2p47929b76eb2e809240f415c19f9383f92@epcms2p4>
Date:   Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:27:59 +0900
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
CMS-TYPE: 102P
DLP-Filter: Pass
References: <1319810e-a323-c022-5e27-902f88cefe8f@acm.org>
        <963815509.21591320301642.JavaMail.epsvc@epcpadp1>
        <231786897.01591320001492.JavaMail.epsvc@epcpadp1>
        <336371513.41591320902369.JavaMail.epsvc@epcpadp1>
        <CGME20200605011604epcms2p8bec8ef6682583d7248dc7d9dc1bfc882@epcms2p4>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Bart,

On 2020-06-04 18:30, Daejun Park wrote:
> > +inline void ufsf_slave_configure(struct ufs_hba *hba,
> > +         struct scsi_device *sdev)
> > +{
> > +  /* skip well-known LU */
> > +  if (sdev->lun >= UFS_UPIU_MAX_UNIT_NUM_ID)
> > +    return;
> > +
> > +  if (!(hba->dev_info.b_ufs_feature_sup & UFS_FEATURE_SUPPORT_HPB_BIT))
> > +    return;
> > +
> > +  atomic_inc(&hba->ufsf.slave_conf_cnt);
> > +  smp_mb__after_atomic(); /* for slave_conf_cnt */
> > +
> > +  /* waiting sdev init.*/
> > +  if (waitqueue_active(&hba->ufsf.sdev_wait))
> > +    wake_up(&hba->ufsf.sdev_wait);
> > +}

> Guarding a wake_up() call with a waitqueue_active() check is an
> anti-pattern. Please don't do that and call wake_up() directly.
> Additionally, wake_up() includes a barrier if it wakes up a kernel
> thread so the smp_mb__after_atomic() can be left out if the
> waitqueue_active() call is removed.
OK, I will change it.

> > +/**
> > + * struct ufsf_operation - UFS feature specific callbacks
> > + * @prep_fn: called after construct upiu structure
> > + * @reset: called after proving hba
                           ^^^^^^^
> Is this a typo? Should "proving" perhaps be changed into "probing"?
Yes, I will change.

> > +struct ufshpb_driver {
> > +  struct device_driver drv;
> > +  struct list_head lh_hpb_lu;
> > +
> > +  struct ufsf_operation ufshpb_ops;
> > +
> > +  /* memory management */
> > +  struct kmem_cache *ufshpb_mctx_cache;
> > +  mempool_t *ufshpb_mctx_pool;
> > +  mempool_t *ufshpb_page_pool;
> > +
> > +  struct workqueue_struct *ufshpb_wq;
> > +};

> Why is a dedicated workqueue needed? Why are the standard workqueues not
> good enough?
The map_work handles map related operations, including IO operations. So, adding
this task to the standard WQ can interfere with other jobs and degrade HPB related performance.


> > @@ -2525,6 +2525,8 @@ static int ufshcd_queuecommand(struct Scsi_Host *host, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
> >  
> >    ufshcd_comp_scsi_upiu(hba, lrbp);
> >  
> > +  ufsf_ops_prep_fn(hba, lrbp);
> > +
> >    err = ufshcd_map_sg(hba, lrbp);
> >    if (err) {
> >      lrbp->cmd = NULL;

> What happens if a SCSI command is retried and hence ufsf_ops_prep_fn()
> is called multiple times for the same SCSI command?
Developers of UFS features should implement it so that prep_fn does not have
any problems even if it processes the same SCSI command multiple times.
In HPB feature, prep_fn modifies only upiu  structure. So it is ok to call
it multiple times because the upiu is rebuilt from ufshcd_comp_scsi_upiu().

Thanks,

Daejun.