On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 07:35:03PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 06:26:03PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 07:23:12PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > What "real workload" test can be run on this to help show if it is > > > useful or not? These vendors seem to think it helps for some reason, > > > otherwise they wouldn't have added it to their silicon :) > > > > > > Should they run fio? If so, any hints on a config that would be good to > > > show any performance increases? > > > > A real actual workload that matters. Then again that was Martins > > request to even justify it. I don't think the broken addressing that > > breaks a whole in the SCSI addressing has absolutely not business being > > supported in Linux ever. The vendors should have thought about the > > design before committing transistors to something that fundamentally > > does not make sense. > > So "time to boot an android system with this enabled and disabled" would > be a valid workload, right? I'm guessing that's what the vendors here > actually care about, otherwise there is no real stress-test on a UFS > system that I know of. Oh, and "supporting stupid hardware specs" is what we do here all the time, you know that :) If someone is foolish enough to build it, we usually have to support the thing, especially if someone else here is willing to do that. I don't see where the addressing is "broken", which patch causes that to happen? thanks, greg k-h
