Hi Bean
>
>
> On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 18:30 +0900, Daejun Park wrote:
> > +static int ufshpb_execute_map_req(struct ufshpb_lu *hpb,
> > + struct ufshpb_req *map_req)
> > +{
> > + struct request_queue *q;
> > + struct request *req;
> > + struct scsi_request *rq;
> > + int ret = 0;
> > +
> > + q = hpb->sdev_ufs_lu->request_queue;
> > + ret = ufshpb_map_req_add_bio_page(hpb, q, map_req->bio,
> > + map_req->mctx);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_notice(&hpb->hpb_lu_dev,
> > + "map_req_add_bio_page fail %d - %d\n",
> > + map_req->rgn_idx, map_req->srgn_idx);
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + req = map_req->req;
> > +
> > + blk_rq_append_bio(req, &map_req->bio);
> > +
> > + req->timeout = 0;
> > + req->end_io_data = (void *)map_req;
> > +
> > + rq = scsi_req(req);
> > + ufshpb_set_read_buf_cmd(rq->cmd, map_req->rgn_idx,
> > + map_req->srgn_idx, hpb-
> > >srgn_mem_size);
> > + rq->cmd_len = HPB_READ_BUFFER_CMD_LENGTH;
> > +
> > + blk_execute_rq_nowait(q, NULL, req, 1,
> > ufshpb_map_req_compl_fn);
>
>
> HPB map_req is now being en-queued in sdev->request_queue.
> This is ok for the HPB v1.0. Have you ever been thinking about
> changing this way to directly issue HPB requests to UFS?
I think it is enough to support HPB.
> Actually, there are two reasons for this way:
>
> 1. Latency of loading mapping entries is lower comparing to your curret
> approach.
Our map request style utilizes block layer API. It makes the codes keep
simple and reliable. Also, I think the latency of loading mapping entries
is not critical for HPB. Futhermore, I think the other requests from
user is important than loading mapping entries. If the map_work issues map
request directly, the user requests can be disturbed by map requests.
> 2. Also, it is preparing for the HPB v2.0. After all HPB 1.0 only
> supports 4KB read, this is useless, I am looking for the HPB v2.0.
I don't understand this comment. In HPB v2.0, this code can be used without
changing.
Thanks,
Daejun
