All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
	Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net>,
	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: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:38:20 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100312233820.GH6491@shareable.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100312142344.174bd46f.akpm@linux-foundation.org>

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:48:57 +0100
> Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net> wrote:
> 
> > This patch fix a huge latency problem in the MTD CFI and LPDDR flash
> > drivers.
> > 
> > The use of a memcpy() during a spinlock operation will cause very long
> > thread context switch delays if the flash chip bandwidth is low and the
> > data to be copied large, because a spinlock will disable preemption.
> > 
> > For example: A flash with 6,5 MB/s bandwidth will cause under ubifs,
> > which request sometimes 128 KB (the flash erase size), a preemption
> > delay of 20 milliseconds. High priority threads will not be served
> > during this time, regardless whether this threads access the flash or
> > not. This behavior breaks real time.

I agree that's a problem, and it's not just real time that's affected.

I've just realised I have a video player with ~1.5 MB/s bandwidth
64kb/block flash attached, and this might be the reason JFFS2 activity
makes video play less smooth on it.  44ms is even worse.

> > 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.

> > There is no performance regression since the mutex is normally not
> > acquired.
> 
> hm, big scary patch.  Are you sure this mutex is never taken from
> atomic or irq contexts?  Is it ully tested with all relevant debug options
> and lockdep enabled?

Including from mtdoops?

-- Jamie

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net>,
	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: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:38:20 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100312233820.GH6491@shareable.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100312142344.174bd46f.akpm@linux-foundation.org>

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:48:57 +0100
> Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net> wrote:
> 
> > This patch fix a huge latency problem in the MTD CFI and LPDDR flash
> > drivers.
> > 
> > The use of a memcpy() during a spinlock operation will cause very long
> > thread context switch delays if the flash chip bandwidth is low and the
> > data to be copied large, because a spinlock will disable preemption.
> > 
> > For example: A flash with 6,5 MB/s bandwidth will cause under ubifs,
> > which request sometimes 128 KB (the flash erase size), a preemption
> > delay of 20 milliseconds. High priority threads will not be served
> > during this time, regardless whether this threads access the flash or
> > not. This behavior breaks real time.

I agree that's a problem, and it's not just real time that's affected.

I've just realised I have a video player with ~1.5 MB/s bandwidth
64kb/block flash attached, and this might be the reason JFFS2 activity
makes video play less smooth on it.  44ms is even worse.

> > 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.

> > There is no performance regression since the mutex is normally not
> > acquired.
> 
> hm, big scary patch.  Are you sure this mutex is never taken from
> atomic or irq contexts?  Is it ully tested with all relevant debug options
> and lockdep enabled?

Including from mtdoops?

-- Jamie

  reply	other threads:[~2010-03-12 23:38 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 [this message]
2010-03-12 23:38     ` Jamie Lokier
2010-03-13 12:35     ` Stefani Seibold
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=20100312233820.GH6491@shareable.org \
    --to=jamie@shareable.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=michael.kreuzer@nsn.com \
    --cc=stefani@seibold.net \
    /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.