All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	"Kreuzer, Michael \(NSN - DE/Ulm\)" <michael.kreuzer@nsn.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch] fix MTD CFI/LPDDR flash driver huge latency bug
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:35:44 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1268483744.6339.25.camel@wall-e> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100312233820.GH6491@shareable.org>

Am Freitag, den 12.03.2010, 23:38 +0000 schrieb Jamie Lokier:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:48:57 +0100
> > Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net> wrote:
> > 


> > > The patch change all the use of spin_lock operations for xxxx->mutex
> > > into mutex operations, which is exact what the name says and means.
> 
> It would be even better if it also split the critical sections into
> smaller ones with cond_resched() between, so that non-preemptible
> kernels benefit too.
> 

The problem is the memcpy operation which is very slow. A cond_resched
wouldn't help, since the cpu bus is blocked during the transfer of the
word.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	"Kreuzer, Michael (NSN - DE/Ulm)" <michael.kreuzer@nsn.com>,
	linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch] fix MTD CFI/LPDDR flash driver huge latency bug
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:35:44 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1268483744.6339.25.camel@wall-e> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100312233820.GH6491@shareable.org>

Am Freitag, den 12.03.2010, 23:38 +0000 schrieb Jamie Lokier:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:48:57 +0100
> > Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net> wrote:
> > 


> > > The patch change all the use of spin_lock operations for xxxx->mutex
> > > into mutex operations, which is exact what the name says and means.
> 
> It would be even better if it also split the critical sections into
> smaller ones with cond_resched() between, so that non-preemptible
> kernels benefit too.
> 

The problem is the memcpy operation which is very slow. A cond_resched
wouldn't help, since the cpu bus is blocked during the transfer of the
word.




  reply	other threads:[~2010-03-13 12:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-03-06 16:48 [Patch] fix MTD CFI/LPDDR flash driver huge latency bug Stefani Seibold
2010-03-06 16:48 ` Stefani Seibold
2010-03-12 22:23 ` Andrew Morton
2010-03-12 22:23   ` Andrew Morton
2010-03-12 23:38   ` Jamie Lokier
2010-03-12 23:38     ` Jamie Lokier
2010-03-13 12:35     ` Stefani Seibold [this message]
2010-03-13 12:35       ` Stefani Seibold
2010-03-15  3:03       ` Jamie Lokier
2010-03-15  3:03         ` Jamie Lokier
2010-03-15  6:15         ` Stefani Seibold
2010-03-15  6:15           ` Stefani Seibold
2010-03-15 14:24           ` Jamie Lokier
2010-03-15 14:24             ` Jamie Lokier
2010-03-19  8:29             ` David Woodhouse
2010-03-19  8:29               ` David Woodhouse
2010-03-19  8:40               ` Jamie Lokier
2010-03-19  8:40                 ` Jamie Lokier
2010-03-13 12:31   ` Stefani Seibold
2010-03-13 12:31     ` Stefani Seibold
2010-03-13 11:25     ` Andrew Morton
2010-03-13 11:25       ` Andrew Morton
2010-03-13 17:00       ` Stefani Seibold
2010-03-13 17:00         ` Stefani Seibold
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-02-28 17:00 Stefani Seibold
2010-02-28 17:00 ` Stefani Seibold

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1268483744.6339.25.camel@wall-e \
    --to=stefani@seibold.net \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=jamie@shareable.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=michael.kreuzer@nsn.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.