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;
From:   "Alim Akhtar" <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>
To:     "'Avri Altman'" <Avri.Altman@wdc.com>, <daejun7.park@samsung.com>,
        "'Bean Huo'" <huobean@gmail.com>, <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        <martin.petersen@oracle.com>, <asutoshd@codeaurora.org>,
        <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>, <cang@codeaurora.org>,
        <bvanassche@acm.org>, <tomas.winkler@intel.com>
Cc:     <linux-scsi@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: <SN6PR04MB46409E7CE538F158387615A6FC6F0@SN6PR04MB4640.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH v3 0/5] scsi: ufs: Add Host Performance Booster
 Support
Date:   Wed, 1 Jul 2020 07:24:30 +0530
Message-ID: <003b01d64f4a$92817460$b7845d20$@samsung.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: AQIDTAvkgzSw0VCcpiFA1doNNzUbzAGL0gCDAZ3Zu2wBd19psQGQGcjWAYu7ZjYBbUIaOKhOqkRw
Content-Language: en-in
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
CMS-TYPE: 105P
References: <60647cf00d9db6818488a714b48b9b6e2a1eb728.camel@gmail.com>
        <948f573d136b39410f7d610e5019aafc9c04fe62.camel@gmail.com>
        <963815509.21592879582091.JavaMail.epsvc@epcpadp2>
        <336371513.41593411482259.JavaMail.epsvc@epcpadp2>
        <CGME20200623010201epcms2p11aebdf1fbc719b409968cba997507114@epcms2p1>
        <231786897.01593479281798.JavaMail.epsvc@epcpadp2>
        <SN6PR04MB46409E7CE538F158387615A6FC6F0@SN6PR04MB4640.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman=40wdc.com>
> Sent: 30 June 2020 12:09
> To: daejun7.park=40samsung.com; Bean Huo <huobean=40gmail.com>;
> jejb=40linux.ibm.com; martin.petersen=40oracle.com; asutoshd=40codeaurora=
.org;
> stanley.chu=40mediatek.com; cang=40codeaurora.org; bvanassche=40acm.org;
> tomas.winkler=40intel.com; ALIM AKHTAR <alim.akhtar=40samsung.com>
> Cc: linux-scsi=40vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel=40vger.kernel.org; Sang-yo=
on Oh
> <sangyoon.oh=40samsung.com>; Sung-Jun Park
> <sungjun07.park=40samsung.com>; yongmyung lee
> <ymhungry.lee=40samsung.com>; Jinyoung CHOI <j-young.choi=40samsung.com>;
> Adel Choi <adel.choi=40samsung.com>; BoRam Shin
> <boram.shin=40samsung.com>
> Subject: RE: =5BRFC PATCH v3 0/5=5D scsi: ufs: Add Host Performance Boost=
er
> Support
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> >
> > 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=21 I replied to your comment (
> > > > https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=3Dbe575021-e3854728-be56db6e-
> > 0cc47a31cdf8-
> >
> 6c7d0e1e42762b92&q=3D1&u=3Dhttps%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=3Drandread, --bs=3D4kb, --
> > > size=3D8G/10G/64G/100G. and see what performance diff with the direct
> > > submission approach.
> >
> > Thanks=21
> >
> > > > 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 submissi=
on 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.
> I vote to stay with the current implementation because:
> 1) Bean is probably right about 2.0, but it's out of scope for now -
>     there is a long way to go before we'll need to worry about it
> 2) For now, we should focus on the functional flows.
>     Performance issues, should such issues indeed exists, can be dealt wi=
th  later.
> And,
> 3) The current code base is running in production for more than 3 years n=
ow.
>      I am not so eager to dump a robust, well debugged code unless it abs=
olutely
> necessary.
>=20
Avri and Bean,
I think this is good approach to take, and let us add incremental patches t=
o add future specification enhancements.
=20
> Thanks,
> Avri
>=20