Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <580a9991-b117-86aa-a7b9-bf952d580a87@allwinnertech.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Mar 2022 18:11:18 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: block: enable cache-flushing when mmc cache is on
Content-Language: en-GB
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_L=c3=b6hle?= <CLoehle@hyperstone.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
        "beanhuo@micron.com" <beanhuo@micron.com>,
        "porzio@gmail.com" <porzio@gmail.com>,
        "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        allwinner-opensource-support 
        <allwinner-opensource-support@allwinnertech.com>
References: <20220312044315.7994-1-michael@allwinnertech.com>
 <83edf9a1-1712-5388-a3fa-d685f1f581df@intel.com>
 <88e53cb9-791f-ee58-9be8-76ae9986e0e2@allwinnertech.com>
 <DM6PR04MB6575C3B87DFA920EDCD994CCFC0F9@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <32b29790-eb5c-dac0-1f91-aede38220914@allwinnertech.com>
 <DM6PR04MB6575A4A2A687A876EA5C04B7FC119@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <312d724c-e43f-d766-49fb-9c5b10fe8b07@intel.com>
 <7ec0cf3e316a4ed9987962b4cbf01604@hyperstone.com>
 <a1230f11-a2dd-1959-5444-28c57d3babf6@intel.com>
 <CAPDyKFpnR12+nrbiB-Ps-C4vn-WeHneRGJioQ_0b2ikk2CBChw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPDyKFqnFVd=mvQMnydT569Y6YFg3zPkttQ=amdzmT_yqYQeTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <a39e9f71-7a9c-bf0e-50d0-d45de3c2e132@allwinnertech.com>
 <CAPDyKFoVVrCNqJUztKnOqyJHhFYnH0H3PR1z02qVN7pchD6W0g@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Michael Wu <michael@allwinnertech.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFoVVrCNqJUztKnOqyJHhFYnH0H3PR1z02qVN7pchD6W0g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 25/03/2022 18:13, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 at 06:46, Michael Wu <michael@allwinnertech.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 24/03/2022 19:27, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 at 10:14, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 at 17:08, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 16.3.2022 16.46, Christian Löhle wrote:
>>>>>>> So we are not going to let the block layer know about SD cache?
>>>>>>> Or is it a separate change?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have some code for this laying around, but as it requires reading, parsing and writing Function Registers,
>>>>>> in particular PEH, it's a lot of boilerplate code to get the functionality, but I'll clean it up and send a patch in the coming weeks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We have the sd cache flush.  We would presumably just need to call blk_queue_write_cache()
>>>>> for the !mmc_card_mmc(card) case e.g.
>>>>>
>>>>>           if (mmc_has_reliable_write(card)) {
>>>>>                   md->flags |= MMC_BLK_REL_WR;
>>>>>                   enable_fua = true;
>>>>>           }
>>>>>
>>>>>           if (mmc_cache_enabled(card->host))
>>>>>                   enable_cache = true;
>>>>>
>>>>>           blk_queue_write_cache(md->queue.queue, enable_cache, enable_fua);
>>>>
>>>> To me, this seems like the most reasonable thing to do.
>>>>
>>>> However, I have to admit that it's not clear to me, if there was a
>>>> good reason to why commit f4c5522b0a88 ("mmc: Reliable write
>>>> support.") also added support for REQ_FLUSH (write back cache) and why
>>>> not only REQ_FUA. I assumed this was wrong too, right?
>>>>
>>
>> Hi Ulf,
>>
>> 1. I've found the reason. If we only enable REQ_FUA, there won't be any
>> effect -- The block layer won't send any request with FUA flag to the
>> driver.
>> If we want REQ_FUA to take effect, we must enable REQ_FLUSH. But on the
>> contrary, REQ_FLUSH does not rely on REQ_FUA.
>> In the previous patch(commit f4c5522b0a88 ("mmc: Reliable write
>> support.")), REQ_FLUSH was added to make REQ_FUA effective. I've done
>> experiments to prove this.
> 
> Thanks for doing the research and for confirming.
> 
> Note that this is also pretty well documented in
> Documentation/block/writeback_cache_control.rst.

Thanks for reminding. I'm clear now.

> 
>>
>> 2. Why block layer requires REQ_FLUSH to make REQ_FUA effective? I did
>> not find the reason. Does anyone know about this? Thank you.
> 
> The REQ_FLUSH indicates that the storage device has a write back
> cache, which also can be flushed in some device specific way.
> 
> The REQ_FUA (Force Unit Access), tells that the data can be written to
> the storage device, in a way that when the I/O request is completed,
> the data is fully written to the device (the data must not be left in
> the write back cache). In other words, REQ_FUA doesn't make sense
> unless REQ_FLUSH is supported too.
> 

Thank you for your answer.

> $subject patch should also conform to this pattern.

I'm not sure if I understood this in a right way... Did you mean I 
should modify the subject of this mail/patch?

> 
> However, it's still questionable to me whether we want to support
> REQ_FUA through the eMMC reliable write command - in case we also have
> support for managing the eMMC cache separately. It looks to me that
> the reason why we currently support REQ_FUA, is because back in the
> days when there was only the eMMC reliable write command available, it
> was simply the best we could do. But it was never really a good fit.
> 
> I am starting to think that we may consider dropping REQ_FUA, if we
> have the option to manage the eMMC cache separately - no matter
> whether the eMMC reliable write command is supported or not. In this
> case, REQ_FLUSH is sufficient and also a better match to what we
> really can support.

Hi Ulf,
As to dropping REQ_FUA, I don't know if it is a good idea, but generally 
we are facing three possible situations:

1. If both cache and reliable-write are available, both REQ_FUA and 
REQ_FLUSH can be supported at the same time. In this case, with 
available cache, the behavior of reliable-write is to write eMMC while 
skipping cache, which is consistent with the current kernel's definition 
of REQ_FUA. What's more, most eMMCs now support both cache and 
reliable-write command.
2. If only reliable-write is available, REQ_FUA should not be supported, 
which is consistent with the current standard in another way. But I 
don't think eMMCs that only support reliable-write can be easily found 
nowadays.
3. If only cache is available, we just use REQ_FLUSH. It is not in 
conflict with keeping REQ_FUA.

Maybe, is it more reasonable to reserve FUA and use if/else to pick it 
up or down, considering the compatibility? I mean, in most cases, FUA 
and FLUSH are complementary. So it seems more feasible with branch to 
choose.

>>
>>>> When it comes to patches for stable kernels. mmc_cache_enabled() was
>>>> introduced quite recently in v5.13, so for older kernels that call
>>>> needs to be replaced with something else.
>>>>
>>>> In any case, the relevant commits that can be considered as needs to
>>>> be fixed seems like these:
>>>> commit f4c5522b0a88 ("mmc: Reliable write support.")
>>>> commit 881d1c25f765 ("mmc: core: Add cache control for eMMC4.5 device")
>>>> commit 130206a615a9 ("mmc: core: Add support for cache ctrl for SD cards")
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Michael, are you planning to send a v2 for this? Or are there any
>>> parts that are still unclear to you?
>>
>> Dear Ulf, Sorry for the delay. I was trying to figure out the SD cache
>> stuff, so a few day was taken...
> 
> No problem, I have been busy too. :-)
> 
> Kind regards
> Uffe

-- 
Best Regards,
Michael Wu