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;
Sender: cang=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date:   Mon, 15 Mar 2021 16:30:29 +0800
From:   Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
To:     Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>
Cc:     "James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        yongmyung lee <ymhungry.lee@samsung.com>,
        Daejun Park <daejun7.park@samsung.com>,
        alim.akhtar@samsung.com, asutoshd@codeaurora.org,
        Zang Leigang <zangleigang@hisilicon.com>,
        Avi Shchislowski <avi.shchislowski@wdc.com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>, stanley.chu@mediatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/10] scsi: ufshpb: Make eviction depends on region's
 reads
In-Reply-To: <20210302132503.224670-5-avri.altman@wdc.com>
References: <20210302132503.224670-1-avri.altman@wdc.com>
 <20210302132503.224670-5-avri.altman@wdc.com>
Message-ID: <7cf2ce1235075c2925561d180b1bd233@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.9
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-03-02 21:24, Avri Altman wrote:
> In host mode, eviction is considered an extreme measure.
> verify that the entering region has enough reads, and the exiting
> region has much less reads.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>
> ---
>  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshpb.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshpb.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshpb.c
> index a8f8d13af21a..6f4fd22eaf2f 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshpb.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshpb.c
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>  #include "../sd.h"
> 
>  #define ACTIVATION_THRESHOLD 4 /* 4 IOs */
> +#define EVICTION_THRESHOLD (ACTIVATION_THRESHOLD << 6) /* 256 IOs */
> 
>  /* memory management */
>  static struct kmem_cache *ufshpb_mctx_cache;
> @@ -1050,6 +1051,13 @@ static struct ufshpb_region
> *ufshpb_victim_lru_info(struct ufshpb_lu *hpb)
>  		if (ufshpb_check_srgns_issue_state(hpb, rgn))
>  			continue;
> 
> +		/*
> +		 * in host control mode, verify that the exiting region
> +		 * has less reads
> +		 */
> +		if (hpb->is_hcm && rgn->reads > (EVICTION_THRESHOLD >> 1))
> +			continue;
> +
>  		victim_rgn = rgn;
>  		break;
>  	}
> @@ -1235,7 +1243,7 @@ static int ufshpb_issue_map_req(struct ufshpb_lu 
> *hpb,
> 
>  static int ufshpb_add_region(struct ufshpb_lu *hpb, struct 
> ufshpb_region *rgn)
>  {
> -	struct ufshpb_region *victim_rgn;
> +	struct ufshpb_region *victim_rgn = NULL;
>  	struct victim_select_info *lru_info = &hpb->lru_info;
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  	int ret = 0;
> @@ -1263,6 +1271,16 @@ static int ufshpb_add_region(struct ufshpb_lu
> *hpb, struct ufshpb_region *rgn)
>  			 * because the device could detect this region
>  			 * by not issuing HPB_READ
>  			 */
> +
> +			/*
> +			 * in host control mode, verify that the entering
> +			 * region has enough reads
> +			 */

Maybe merge the new comments with the original comments above?

Thanks,
Can Guo.

> +			if (hpb->is_hcm && rgn->reads < EVICTION_THRESHOLD) {
> +				ret = -EACCES;
> +				goto out;
> +			}
> +
>  			victim_rgn = ufshpb_victim_lru_info(hpb);
>  			if (!victim_rgn) {
>  				dev_warn(&hpb->sdev_ufs_lu->sdev_dev,