On 2021-02-08 16:16, Bean Huo wrote:
On Fri, 2021-02-05 at 11:29 +0800, Can Guo wrote:> + return ppn_table[offset]; > +} > + > +static void > +ufshpb_get_pos_from_lpn(struct ufshpb_lu *hpb, unsigned long lpn, > int > *rgn_idx, > + int *srgn_idx, int *offset) > +{ > + int rgn_offset; > + > + *rgn_idx = lpn >> hpb->entries_per_rgn_shift; > + rgn_offset = lpn & hpb->entries_per_rgn_mask; > + *srgn_idx = rgn_offset >> hpb->entries_per_srgn_shift; > + *offset = rgn_offset & hpb->entries_per_srgn_mask; > +} > + > +static void > +ufshpb_set_hpb_read_to_upiu(struct ufshpb_lu *hpb, struct > ufshcd_lrb > *lrbp, > + u32 lpn, u64 ppn, unsigned int > transfer_len) > +{ > + unsigned char *cdb = lrbp->cmd->cmnd; > + > + cdb[0] = UFSHPB_READ; > + > + put_unaligned_be64(ppn, &cdb[6]); You are assuming the HPB entries read out by "HPB Read Buffer" cmd are in Little Endian, which is why you are using put_unaligned_be64 here.Actaully, here uses put_unaligned_be64 is no problem. SCSI command should be big-endian filled. I Think the problem is that geting ppn from HPB cache in ufshpb_get_ppn().
whatever...
... e0000001f: 12 34 56 78 90 fa de ef ... + +static u64 ufshpb_get_ppn(struct ufshpb_lu *hpb, + struct ufshpb_map_ctx *mctx, int pos, int *error) +{ + u64 *ppn_table; // It s a 64 bits pointer + struct page *page; + int index, offset; + + index = pos / (PAGE_SIZE / HPB_ENTRY_SIZE); + offset = pos % (PAGE_SIZE / HPB_ENTRY_SIZE); + + page = mctx->m_page[index]; + if (unlikely(!page)) { + *error = -ENOMEM; + dev_err(&hpb->sdev_ufs_lu->sdev_dev, + "error. cannot find page in mctx\n"); + return 0; + } + + ppn_table = page_address(page); + if (unlikely(!ppn_table)) { + *error = -ENOMEM; + dev_err(&hpb->sdev_ufs_lu->sdev_dev, + "error. cannot get ppn_table\n"); + return 0; + } + + return ppn_table[offset]; +}this assumption is not right for all the other flash vendors - HPB entries read out by "HPB Read Buffer" cmd may come in Big Endian, if so, their random read performance are screwed. Actually, I have seen at least two flash vendors acting so. I had to modify this line to get the code work properly on my setups. Meanwhile, in your cover letter, you mentioned that the performance data is collected on a UFS2.1 device. Please re-collect the data on a real UFS3.1 device and let me know the part number. Otherwise, the data is not quite convincing to us. Regards, Can Guo.
