From: joerg.krause@embedded.rocks (Jörg Krause)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: mmc: core: complete/wait_for_completion performance
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 10:03:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1481706204.3994.4.camel@embedded.rocks> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <123257138.400786.e58aee3b-9fc2-4b39-a030-c2409c5b92fc.open-xchange@email.1und1.de>
Hi Stefan,
On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 20:23 +0100, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> Hi J?rg,
>
> > J?rg Krause <joerg.krause@embedded.rocks> hat am 7. Dezember 2016
> > um 08:32
> > geschrieben:
> >
> >
> > Hit Stefan,
> >
> > On Sat, 2016-11-26 at 20:10 +0100, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> > > Hi J?rg,
> > >
> > > > J?rg Krause <joerg.krause@embedded.rocks> hat am 20. November
> > > > 2016
> > > > um 20:10
> > > > geschrieben:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 2016-11-20 at 16:44 +0100, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> > > > > > J?rg Krause <joerg.krause@embedded.rocks> hat am 20.
> > > > > > November
> > > > > > 2016
> > > > > > um 15:42
> > > > > > geschrieben:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Stefan,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, 2016-11-20 at 14:28 +0100, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi J?rg,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > J?rg Krause <joerg.krause@embedded.rocks> hat am 20.
> > > > > > > > November
> > > > > > > > 2016
> > > > > > > > um 13:27
> > > > > > > > geschrieben:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I started the discussion on this mailing list in
> > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > [1],
> > > > > > > > but I'd like to move it to a new thread, because it
> > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > mmc
> > > > > > > > specific.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The issue is that I am noticed low wifi network
> > > > > > > > throughput
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > i.MX28
> > > > > > > > board with the mainline kernel (v4.7.10, about 6 Mbps)
> > > > > > > > compared
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > vendor kernel (Freescale v2.6.35.3, about 20 Mbps). The
> > > > > > > > wifi
> > > > > > > > chip
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > attached using the SDIO interface.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I started investigation where the bottleneck in the
> > > > > > > > mainline
> > > > > > > > kernel?might come from. Therefore I checked that the
> > > > > > > > configs
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > settings for the interfaces and drivers are the same.
> > > > > > > > They
> > > > > > > > are.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > so you're not using the mxs_defconfig settings anymore?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, I changed the settings.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What happens to performance to if you change the following
> > > > > settings
> > > > > to the same
> > > > > like in mxs_defconfig?
> > > > >
> > > > > CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y
> > > > > CONFIG_DEFAULT_IOSCHED="noop"
> > > >
> > > > No much change at all. The time difference between complete()
> > > > and
> > > > wait_for_complete() decreases in best case to 110 us, but also
> > > > varies
> > > > to above 130 us.
> > >
> > > just a weird idea. Did you tried to add MMC_CAP_CMD23 into the
> > > caps
> > > [1]?
> > >
> > > [1] - http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/mmc/host/mxs-m
> > > mc.c
> > > ?v=4.8#L642
> >
> > I tried, but it did not improved the timing or throughput. However,
> > many thanks for the input.
> >
> > J?rg
>
> did you try cyclictest [1]?
Not yet. Not sure what to measure and which values to compare here.
>
> Beside the time for a request the amount of requests for the complete
> iperf test
> would we interesting. Maybe there are retries.
>
> I'm still interested in your PIO mode patches for mxs-mmc even
> without clean up.
Actually, the patch does not implement a PIO mode, but drops DMA and
uses polling instead. I've attached the patch.
> [1] - https://git.kernel.org/cgit/utils/rt-tests/rt-tests.git/
Best regards
J?rg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-mmc-mxs-mmc-drop-DMA-and-use-polling-mode.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 7570 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20161214/c2c74830/attachment-0001.bin>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-14 9:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-20 12:27 mmc: core: complete/wait_for_completion performance Jörg Krause
2016-11-20 13:28 ` Stefan Wahren
2016-11-20 14:42 ` Jörg Krause
2016-11-20 15:44 ` Stefan Wahren
2016-11-20 19:10 ` Jörg Krause
2016-11-26 19:10 ` Stefan Wahren
2016-12-07 7:29 ` Jörg Krause
2016-12-07 7:32 ` Jörg Krause
2016-12-07 19:23 ` Stefan Wahren
2016-12-14 9:03 ` Jörg Krause [this message]
2016-12-14 18:57 ` Stefan Wahren
2016-12-15 13:50 ` Jörg Krause
2016-12-15 18:51 ` Stefan Wahren
2016-12-16 10:06 ` Jörg Krause
2016-12-26 23:03 ` Stefan Wahren
[not found] ` <1484512950.2026.4.camel@embedded.rocks>
2017-01-15 21:08 ` Stefan Wahren
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=1481706204.3994.4.camel@embedded.rocks \
--to=joerg.krause@embedded.rocks \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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.