On Tue, 2020-06-30 at 10:05 +0900, Daejun Park wrote: > 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! I replied to your comment ( > > > https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=be575021-e3854728-be56db6e-0cc47a31cdf8-6c7d0e1e42762b92&q=1&u=https%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=randread, --bs=4kb, -- > > size=8G/10G/64G/100G. and see what performance diff with the direct > > submission approach. > > Thanks! > > > > 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 submission > > 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. > Hi Daejun If you need reference code, you can freely copy my code from my RFC v3 patchset. or if you need my side testing support, just let me, I can help you test your code. Thanks, Bean
