From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 009.lax.mailroute.net (009.lax.mailroute.net [199.89.1.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C3D913C3DD; Mon, 24 Jun 2024 16:29:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.12 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719246564; cv=none; b=Sq5JlT9xerAHHXkOOwGPrmugHjfK+MJ/WW3+yJGG1rFGywnVhCfu6vKUVJ/DBTq6Qi31kAKQi6BVcLFj07GQGEqKNH0mlLKfFJTZKu3umieQxEtVYQYsWPVzSk25MkteYRP7MUx5OjfWJI79NJ9wHoihlHc5tzEn7ddapxMYgd8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719246564; c=relaxed/simple; bh=y0XI1/zWy/ZAVLOadjpPIu2VmYpe0M8bW12T4D1J86I=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=U57OTf0rbpoaOfmuwBuLMv8ZUpjoN99nMft9Jc3Iax/wGqujHA0CcghFssGXom6WhBRUBfJXEDnwwR/glPsCiUKE6FSf6chQgHs820qBu/qthUV6r3Z7HPeLnHc0kXgkMRblLdiwHxq6NR31dxRRSyYqJFkPfnnU9bXf5Rc6hTs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b=GQSNA8rX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.12 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b="GQSNA8rX" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 009.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4W7D1t3zL4zll9by; Mon, 24 Jun 2024 16:29:22 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=acm.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :from:from:content-language:references:subject:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mr01; t=1719246557; x=1721838558; bh=XzBxWYiHnenCqjx10h/fb7Ug T2+m8FdPyZracq6MfuY=; b=GQSNA8rXtyINheNGuFl4l9zKrSYImTDgHttLOADY PRVJTWm0V2+XBTcRW2wsFnxqzB2tHkJWRWOFuMpHAplIn/Wie9sK8PIgv+G9YOOd kX06mVgHmyoiGmoO8yUymVUILTd54YOFDLjNGt+7kJqnn42RQ5XZCn/wiky1Js2v R6zPfpYRhcltpEdfVyB3JIyRyqCBkL+JkKaViTphd3IjwfqWW2vMveR9zVczt4s5 JO1qkvCueBhkizswEOg3YaMb7E7HnTMfcdt4mJOZCQ2kK0GRuVv9/1k3+ViBcISS V2TZvGXvx/uRbhSdA8v0cppxGZgtjcb+ulQ2nNvwSoNzJg== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 009.lax.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (009.lax [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id usmbtpjiE8Fr; Mon, 24 Jun 2024 16:29:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [100.96.154.26] (unknown [104.132.0.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bvanassche@acm.org) by 009.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4W7D1j6PhJzll9Zx; Mon, 24 Jun 2024 16:29:13 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 09:29:12 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: core: quiesce request queues before check pending cmds To: Ziqi Chen , quic_cang@quicinc.com, mani@kernel.org, beanhuo@micron.com, avri.altman@wdc.com, junwoo80.lee@samsung.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com, quic_nguyenb@quicinc.com, quic_nitirawa@quicinc.com, quic_rampraka@quicinc.com Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Alim Akhtar , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Peter Wang , Manivannan Sadhasivam , Maramaina Naresh , Asutosh Das , open list References: <1717754818-39863-1-git-send-email-quic_ziqichen@quicinc.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/24/24 2:56 AM, Ziqi Chen wrote: > 1. Why do we need to call blk_mq_quiesce_tagset() into > ufshcd_scsi_block_requests() instead directly replace all > ufshcd_scsi_block_requests() with blk_mq_quiesce_tagset()? Because ufshcd_scsi_block_requests() has more callers than the clock scaling code and because all callers of ufshcd_scsi_block_requests() should be fixed. > 2. This patch need to to do long-term stress test, I think many OEMs > can't wait as it is a blocker issue for them. Patch "scsi: ufs: core: Quiesce request queues before checking pending cmds" is already in Linus' master branch. I will rebase my patch on top of linux-next. Best regards, Bart.