> > @@ -2656,7 +2656,12 @@ static int ufshcd_queuecommand(struct Scsi_Host
> > *host, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
> >
> > lrbp->req_abort_skip = false;
> >
> > - ufshpb_prep(hba, lrbp);
> > + err = ufshpb_prep(hba, lrbp);
> > + if (err == -EAGAIN) {
> > + lrbp->cmd = NULL;
> > + ufshcd_release(hba);
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> Did I miss-read it, or are you bailing out of wb failed e.g. because no tag is available?
> Why not continue with read10?
We try to sending HPB read several times within the requeue_timeout_ms.
Because it strategy has more benefit for overall performance in this
situation that many requests are queueing.
>
>
> > + if (blk_insert_cloned_request(q, req) != BLK_STS_OK)
> > + return -EAGAIN;
> Why did you choose to use blk_insert_cloned_request and not e.g. the more common blk_execute_rq_nowait?
It is the process that sending one more command (write buffer) prior to
HPB read command. This API makes write buffer to issue directly. Other APIs,
for example blk_execute_rq_nowait, it can make queueing the command in the
scheduler, so the order of commands can be inversed.
Here is comment of the API.
// blk_insert_cloned_request - Helper for stacking drivers to submit a request
> > + hpb->stats.pre_req_cnt++;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> > - ufshpb_set_hpb_read_to_upiu(hpb, lrbp, lpn, ppn, transfer_len);
> > + if (ufshpb_is_required_wb(hpb, transfer_len)) {
> > + err = ufshpb_issue_pre_req(hpb, cmd, &read_id);
> > + if (err) {
> > + unsigned long timeout;
> > +
> > + timeout = cmd->jiffies_at_alloc + msecs_to_jiffies(
> > + hpb->params.requeue_timeout_ms);
> > + if (time_before(jiffies, timeout))
> > + return -EAGAIN;
> Why requeue_timeout_ms needs to be a configurable parameter?
> Why rq->timeout is not enough?
We are using this value for re-trying threshold of HPB read.
Thanks,
Daejun
> Thanks,
> Avri
>
>
>
>
>
