From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::131; helo=mail-it1-x131.google.com; envelope-from=sajee.kk@gmail.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mail-it1-x131.google.com (mail-it1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FC81211BA459 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 23:06:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-it1-x131.google.com with SMTP id d11so13139161itf.2 for ; Fri, 01 Feb 2019 23:06:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=lv0VdDf9w5WoLH38UHw17TUj0Jt7FhUEdXtUJXHPyRk=; b=XjtJugFjRGkem8A30udpNs5zuEdh0zi0WErhuiJlf6wKEkVfF8r7+VmQoD4GBas57c YDE/dbgAW+Z8MVpYwDFeQKTL+gmHkrabMnmhWIm2jwow8nLeFvso9POxbQF5C3x2jEVd fnjM4enGMqgrHc7kP5lQJ8yM/hn8lmocalf36lxsbPyoFxz1AazehVAE/+kS3sYYKAt/ rFGJSkmhkGPaTLm67tJVbPgRy1tMBvaWYz+ICoKxW9Kqzpn+zvCawbrto5UxFJpCCpBz vfD5/LCKPV4yX8gPilG6a4MtJrdhJGSYyxXrEjk13B8GDYCTtI+xak3nDm+WHZUAmOip nVqQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=lv0VdDf9w5WoLH38UHw17TUj0Jt7FhUEdXtUJXHPyRk=; b=AKz9cv1TsreNCuzBkK0WYE2F7brkCFiSFAOf2jWj8nn10o9rpul02fxzZscI3Xs2Rx 3IaWYvqgY+PXWsq4LokN5u5FNYzTCt5uTKVb4uuECSkzUs5JnvRxPkdsGfeNk6LE7CCh 6X0AENy8eFJedzm8D211Ynf3cd3LDRQF7o0xI+aJR8I7U6TQPZFKrwLheQTaEIYWdY5I gioNLtUpW8BZKp8S6NZOwGTUq6b11ggCrHkQBwBNEDeiFJGtl02I+0TGiIM287tMWLP/ E0loGua7fnRoOQatN382RQ+Vn5SqrJpwFjJJy2qMYbZaTTEd5pal2IUS6W9c3gRE27aJ PX4g== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukfaaUzKf/bgn+VDmXghBr2LdbIbSc60POd+1XmAsQfZXVBB2OR/ eSpSkonN2smy4tivlpWSIg0VrhgDN4uApTX0lto= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN4RW/D2azzETEx7+K9kkzW1AVBauurKv5wqrbDUI810DqRPjN+Q0beIKJfdH3T3q0pr5iKtsAd5X/VuMXjg6dQ= X-Received: by 2002:a02:5f49:: with SMTP id r70mr26939941jab.128.1549091162245; Fri, 01 Feb 2019 23:06:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <18b7cdf5-8569-ab69-fc19-21da7ce2b1ea@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <18b7cdf5-8569-ab69-fc19-21da7ce2b1ea@redhat.com> From: Sajeesh Kk Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 12:35:50 +0530 Message-ID: To: Laszlo Ersek Cc: Rafael Machado , edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: BlockIo2 Protocol test tool X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2019 07:06:03 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hello Laszlo, Thanks for the quick response. I have some doubts regarding "TransactionStatus" that should be signaled by the driver when an IO operation is completed. If my understanding is not correct please educate. 1. As per UEFI spec, the error codes EFI_DEVICE_ERROR, EFI_NO_MEDIA, EFI_MEDIA_CHANGED or EFI_WRITE_PROTECTED should not be signaled when non Blocking IO is being used. so if an IO fails, the driver should not signal the event as per the spec. if this is the case, the event should be signaled only when IO is completed successfully ? 2. If the driver does not have enough resources to complete an IO request, the driver should signal the event with same status (EFI_OUT_OF_RESOURCES) so that caller will retry the IO ? In such cases, what should be the status of ReadEx/WriteEx callbacks itself that should returned to the caller ? In short, i am bit confused what should be the "Transaction Status" that should be signaled by the driver. Please comment. Thanks, Sajeesh. On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 2:17 PM Laszlo Ersek wrote: > Hi, > > On 01/26/19 17:57, Sajeesh Kk wrote: > > Hello Rafeal, > > > > I believe The UEFI Sct test suite cannot be used for performance testing. > > Are there any tools which can be used from UEFI shell to measure disk IO > > perfomance using BlockIO2 Protocol ? > > Please let me know. > > from a cursory look, FatPkg/EnhancedFatDxe appears to implement the the > ReadEx/WriteEx methods of EFI_FILE_PROTOCOL > (EFI_FILE_PROTOCOL_REVISION2). I think the implementation uses the > DiskIo2 protocol. > > And "MdeModulePkg/Universal/Disk/DiskIoDxe" should automatically install > DiskIo2 on top of your BlockIo2. > > So, if you can write a simple UEFI application that uses the *Ex() > methods of EFI_FILE_PROTOCOL, that could be a start. (Nothing in edk2 > seems to use ReadEx / WriteEx currently.) > > Thanks, > Laszlo >