From: Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@gmail.com>
To: Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de>,
Albert Herranz <albert_herranz@yahoo.es>,
Matt Fleming <matt@console-pimps.org>,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>, Pierre Ossman <pierre@ossman.eu>,
linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] sdhci: Move real work out of an atomic context
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 02:27:51 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100908222751.GA23068@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100908220548.GA7967@void.printf.net>
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 11:05:48PM +0100, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi Anton,
>
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 01:57:50AM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Would be also great if you could point out which patch causes
> > most of the performance drop (if any)?
> >
> > Albert, if you could find time, can you also "bisect" the
> > patchset? I wouldn't want to buy Nintendo WII just to debug the
> > perf regression. ;-) FWIW, I tried to disable multiblock
> > read/writes and test with SD cards, and still didn't notice
> > any performance drops.
> >
> > Maybe it's SDIO IRQs that cause the performance drop for the
> > WII case, as we delay them a little bit? Or it could be the
> > patch that introduces threaded IRQ handler in whole causes
> > it. If so, I guess we'd need to move some of the processing to
> > the real IRQ context, keeping the handler lockless (if
> > possible) or introducing a very fine grained locking.
>
> I didn't know anything about a reported performance drop, and I don't
> think Andrew did either -- Albert's test results don't seem to have
> made it to this list, or anywhere else that I can see. Could you
> link to/repost his comments?
>
> (I'll be testing with libertas, so that will stress-test SDIO IRQs.)
Sure thing, here are Albert's results.
----- Forwarded message from Albert Herranz <albert_herranz@yahoo.es> -----
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 21:23:51 +0200
From: Albert Herranz <albert_herranz@yahoo.es>
To: Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@gmail.com>
CC: akpm@linux-foundation.org, mm-commits@vger.kernel.org,
ben-linux@fluff.org, matt@console-pimps.org, pierre@ossman.eu,
w.sang@pengutronix.de, mb@bu3sch.de
Subject: Re: + sdhci-use-work-structs-instead-of-tasklets.patch added to -mm
tree
Hi,
Some initial numbers regarding performance. The patchset seems to cause a noticeable performance drop.
I've run two iperf client tests (see the two invocations of iperf -c) and two iperf server tests (see iperf -s invocation).
== 2.6.33 ==
$ iperf -c 192.168.1.130
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 192.168.1.130, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 3] local 192.168.1.127 port 40119 connected with 192.168.1.130 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 3] 0.0-10.1 sec 1.05 MBytes 872 Kbits/sec
$ iperf -c 192.168.1.130
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 192.168.1.130, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 3] local 192.168.1.127 port 40120 connected with 192.168.1.130 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.04 MBytes 870 Kbits/sec
$ iperf -s
------------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 4] local 192.168.1.127 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.130 port 36691
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.0-10.2 sec 3.61 MBytes 2.98 Mbits/sec
[ 5] local 192.168.1.127 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.130 port 36692
[ 5] 0.0-10.1 sec 4.94 MBytes 4.09 Mbits/sec
== 2.6.33 + "sdhci: Move real work out of an atomic context" patchset ==
$ iperf -c 192.168.1.130
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 192.168.1.130, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 3] local 192.168.1.127 port 39210 connected with 192.168.1.130 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 368 KBytes 301 Kbits/sec
$ iperf -c 192.168.1.130
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 192.168.1.130, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 3] local 192.168.1.127 port 39211 connected with 192.168.1.130 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 3] 0.0-10.2 sec 440 KBytes 354 Kbits/sec
$ iperf -s
------------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 4] local 192.168.1.127 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.130 port 57833
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.0-10.2 sec 2.37 MBytes 1.95 Mbits/sec
[ 5] local 192.168.1.127 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.130 port 57834
[ 5] 0.0-10.2 sec 2.30 MBytes 1.90 Mbits/sec
The subjective feeling is too that the system is slower.
Cheers,
Albert
----- End forwarded message -----
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@gmail.com>
To: Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org>
Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@console-pimps.org>,
Albert Herranz <albert_herranz@yahoo.es>,
linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Pierre Ossman <pierre@ossman.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] sdhci: Move real work out of an atomic context
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 02:27:51 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100908222751.GA23068@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100908220548.GA7967@void.printf.net>
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 11:05:48PM +0100, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi Anton,
>
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 01:57:50AM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Would be also great if you could point out which patch causes
> > most of the performance drop (if any)?
> >
> > Albert, if you could find time, can you also "bisect" the
> > patchset? I wouldn't want to buy Nintendo WII just to debug the
> > perf regression. ;-) FWIW, I tried to disable multiblock
> > read/writes and test with SD cards, and still didn't notice
> > any performance drops.
> >
> > Maybe it's SDIO IRQs that cause the performance drop for the
> > WII case, as we delay them a little bit? Or it could be the
> > patch that introduces threaded IRQ handler in whole causes
> > it. If so, I guess we'd need to move some of the processing to
> > the real IRQ context, keeping the handler lockless (if
> > possible) or introducing a very fine grained locking.
>
> I didn't know anything about a reported performance drop, and I don't
> think Andrew did either -- Albert's test results don't seem to have
> made it to this list, or anywhere else that I can see. Could you
> link to/repost his comments?
>
> (I'll be testing with libertas, so that will stress-test SDIO IRQs.)
Sure thing, here are Albert's results.
----- Forwarded message from Albert Herranz <albert_herranz@yahoo.es> -----
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 21:23:51 +0200
From: Albert Herranz <albert_herranz@yahoo.es>
To: Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@gmail.com>
CC: akpm@linux-foundation.org, mm-commits@vger.kernel.org,
ben-linux@fluff.org, matt@console-pimps.org, pierre@ossman.eu,
w.sang@pengutronix.de, mb@bu3sch.de
Subject: Re: + sdhci-use-work-structs-instead-of-tasklets.patch added to -mm
tree
Hi,
Some initial numbers regarding performance. The patchset seems to cause a noticeable performance drop.
I've run two iperf client tests (see the two invocations of iperf -c) and two iperf server tests (see iperf -s invocation).
== 2.6.33 ==
$ iperf -c 192.168.1.130
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 192.168.1.130, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 3] local 192.168.1.127 port 40119 connected with 192.168.1.130 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 3] 0.0-10.1 sec 1.05 MBytes 872 Kbits/sec
$ iperf -c 192.168.1.130
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 192.168.1.130, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 3] local 192.168.1.127 port 40120 connected with 192.168.1.130 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.04 MBytes 870 Kbits/sec
$ iperf -s
------------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 4] local 192.168.1.127 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.130 port 36691
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.0-10.2 sec 3.61 MBytes 2.98 Mbits/sec
[ 5] local 192.168.1.127 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.130 port 36692
[ 5] 0.0-10.1 sec 4.94 MBytes 4.09 Mbits/sec
== 2.6.33 + "sdhci: Move real work out of an atomic context" patchset ==
$ iperf -c 192.168.1.130
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 192.168.1.130, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 3] local 192.168.1.127 port 39210 connected with 192.168.1.130 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 368 KBytes 301 Kbits/sec
$ iperf -c 192.168.1.130
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 192.168.1.130, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 3] local 192.168.1.127 port 39211 connected with 192.168.1.130 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 3] 0.0-10.2 sec 440 KBytes 354 Kbits/sec
$ iperf -s
------------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 4] local 192.168.1.127 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.130 port 57833
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.0-10.2 sec 2.37 MBytes 1.95 Mbits/sec
[ 5] local 192.168.1.127 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.130 port 57834
[ 5] 0.0-10.2 sec 2.30 MBytes 1.90 Mbits/sec
The subjective feeling is too that the system is slower.
Cheers,
Albert
----- End forwarded message -----
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-09-08 22:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-14 13:07 [PATCH 0/8] sdhci: Move real work out of an atomic context Anton Vorontsov
2010-07-14 13:07 ` Anton Vorontsov
2010-07-14 13:07 ` [PATCH 1/8] sdhci: Turn timeout timer into delayed work Anton Vorontsov
2010-07-14 13:07 ` Anton Vorontsov
2010-07-14 13:07 ` [PATCH 2/8] sdhci: Use work structs instead of tasklets Anton Vorontsov
2010-07-14 13:07 ` Anton Vorontsov
2010-07-14 13:08 ` [PATCH 3/8] sdhci: Clear interrupt status register just once Anton Vorontsov
2010-07-14 13:08 ` Anton Vorontsov
2010-07-14 13:08 ` [PATCH 4/8] sdhci: Use threaded IRQ handler Anton Vorontsov
2010-07-14 13:08 ` Anton Vorontsov
2010-07-14 13:08 ` [PATCH 5/8] sdhci: Turn host->lock into a mutex Anton Vorontsov
2010-07-14 13:08 ` Anton Vorontsov
2010-07-14 13:08 ` [PATCH 6/8] sdhci: Get rid of card detect work Anton Vorontsov
2010-07-14 13:08 ` Anton Vorontsov
2010-07-14 13:08 ` [PATCH 7/8] sdhci: Get rid of mdelay()s where it is safe and makes sense Anton Vorontsov
2010-07-14 13:08 ` Anton Vorontsov
2010-07-14 13:08 ` [PATCH 8/8] sdhci: Use jiffies instead of a timeout counter Anton Vorontsov
2010-07-14 13:08 ` Anton Vorontsov
2010-07-15 6:02 ` [PATCH 0/8] sdhci: Move real work out of an atomic context Matt Fleming
2010-07-15 6:02 ` Matt Fleming
2010-07-21 21:13 ` Andrew Morton
2010-07-21 21:13 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-07 22:38 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-07 22:38 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-08 21:37 ` Chris Ball
2010-09-08 21:37 ` Chris Ball
2010-09-08 21:57 ` Anton Vorontsov
2010-09-08 21:57 ` Anton Vorontsov
2010-09-08 22:05 ` Chris Ball
2010-09-08 22:05 ` Chris Ball
2010-09-08 22:27 ` Anton Vorontsov [this message]
2010-09-08 22:27 ` Anton Vorontsov
2010-09-09 2:28 ` Chris Ball
2010-09-09 2:28 ` Chris Ball
2010-09-09 7:15 ` Anton Vorontsov
2010-09-09 7:15 ` Anton Vorontsov
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-05-24 16:00 Jeremie Samuel
2013-06-13 14:23 ` Jeremie Samuel
2013-06-27 14:46 ` Chris Ball
2013-07-09 15:44 Jeremie Samuel
2013-07-09 15:52 ` Philip Rakity
2013-07-11 8:28 ` Jeremie Samuel
2013-10-16 16:20 Jeremie Samuel
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=20100908222751.GA23068@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru \
--to=cbouatmailru@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=albert_herranz@yahoo.es \
--cc=ben-linux@fluff.org \
--cc=cjb@laptop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=matt@console-pimps.org \
--cc=pierre@ossman.eu \
--cc=w.sang@pengutronix.de \
/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.