From: "U.Mutlu" <um-lNbj7F0cCK5BDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier-CRDzTM1onBSWkKpYnGOUKg@public.gmane.org>,
linux-ide-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
Cc: linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org,
linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
u-boot-0aAXYlwwYIKGBzrmiIFOJg@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] drivers: ata: ahci_sunxi: Increased SATA/AHCI DMA TX/RX FIFOs
Date: Sat, 11 May 2019 20:12:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5CD71077.1020100@mutluit.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <jwvk1ex6rvb.fsf-monnier+gmane.comp.hardware.netbook.arm.sunxi-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org>
Stefan Monnier wrote on 05/11/2019 03:37 PM:
>> Increasing the SATA/AHCI DMA TX/RX FIFOs (P0DMACR.TXTS and .RXTS) from
>> default 0x0 each to 0x3 each gives a write performance boost of 120MB/s
>> from lame 36MB/s to 45MB/s previously. Read performance is about 200MB/s
>> [tested on SSD using dd bs=4K count=512K].
>
> Such a simple patch to fix such a long-standing performance problem that
> everyone [ well, apparently not quite everyone ] assumed was a hardware
> limitation...
>
> And yet, April 1st is long gone.
>
> Is it really for real?
Yes, it's indeed real, Stefan; really no April 1st joke. :-)
As you indicated, this problem of slow SATA write-speed
with these small devices lasts now for more than 5 years.
This patch finally solves the problem.
On my test device (BPI-R1) the optimum blocksize seems to be 12K
as it then gives even 129 MB/s write speed.
Here are some test results with different blocksizes, all giving
a write speed of 125 to 129 MB/s:
time sh -c "dd if=/dev/zero of=test.tmp bs=$bs count=$count conv=fdatasync"
------------ bs=8K / count=256K / 1 ------------------
262144+0 records in
262144+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 16.9237 s, 127 MB/s
real 0m16.935s
user 0m0.388s
sys 0m15.777s
------------ bs=8K / count=256K / 2 ------------------
262144+0 records in
262144+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 16.9916 s, 126 MB/s
real 0m17.973s
user 0m0.326s
sys 0m16.806s
------------ bs=8K / count=256K / 3 ------------------
262144+0 records in
262144+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 17.0085 s, 126 MB/s
real 0m17.993s
user 0m0.442s
sys 0m16.588s
------------ bs=12K / count=171K / 1 ------------------
175104+0 records in
175104+0 records out
2151677952 bytes (2.2 GB) copied, 16.8474 s, 128 MB/s
real 0m16.860s
user 0m0.205s
sys 0m15.705s
------------ bs=12K / count=171K / 2 ------------------
175104+0 records in
175104+0 records out
2151677952 bytes (2.2 GB) copied, 16.6934 s, 129 MB/s
real 0m17.669s
user 0m0.227s
sys 0m16.355s
------------ bs=12K / count=171K / 3 ------------------
175104+0 records in
175104+0 records out
2151677952 bytes (2.2 GB) copied, 16.6684 s, 129 MB/s
real 0m17.654s
user 0m0.388s
sys 0m16.118s
------------ bs=16K / count=128K / 1 ------------------
131072+0 records in
131072+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 17.1845 s, 125 MB/s
real 0m17.200s
user 0m0.251s
sys 0m16.060s
------------ bs=16K / count=128K / 2 ------------------
131072+0 records in
131072+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 16.9221 s, 127 MB/s
real 0m17.902s
user 0m0.170s
sys 0m16.763s
------------ bs=16K / count=128K / 3 ------------------
131072+0 records in
131072+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 16.8845 s, 127 MB/s
real 0m17.868s
user 0m0.167s
sys 0m16.736s
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "U.Mutlu" <um@mutluit.com>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de, linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] drivers: ata: ahci_sunxi: Increased SATA/AHCI DMA TX/RX FIFOs
Date: Sat, 11 May 2019 20:12:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5CD71077.1020100@mutluit.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <jwvk1ex6rvb.fsf-monnier+gmane.comp.hardware.netbook.arm.sunxi@gnu.org>
Stefan Monnier wrote on 05/11/2019 03:37 PM:
>> Increasing the SATA/AHCI DMA TX/RX FIFOs (P0DMACR.TXTS and .RXTS) from
>> default 0x0 each to 0x3 each gives a write performance boost of 120MB/s
>> from lame 36MB/s to 45MB/s previously. Read performance is about 200MB/s
>> [tested on SSD using dd bs=4K count=512K].
>
> Such a simple patch to fix such a long-standing performance problem that
> everyone [ well, apparently not quite everyone ] assumed was a hardware
> limitation...
>
> And yet, April 1st is long gone.
>
> Is it really for real?
Yes, it's indeed real, Stefan; really no April 1st joke. :-)
As you indicated, this problem of slow SATA write-speed
with these small devices lasts now for more than 5 years.
This patch finally solves the problem.
On my test device (BPI-R1) the optimum blocksize seems to be 12K
as it then gives even 129 MB/s write speed.
Here are some test results with different blocksizes, all giving
a write speed of 125 to 129 MB/s:
time sh -c "dd if=/dev/zero of=test.tmp bs=$bs count=$count conv=fdatasync"
------------ bs=8K / count=256K / 1 ------------------
262144+0 records in
262144+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 16.9237 s, 127 MB/s
real 0m16.935s
user 0m0.388s
sys 0m15.777s
------------ bs=8K / count=256K / 2 ------------------
262144+0 records in
262144+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 16.9916 s, 126 MB/s
real 0m17.973s
user 0m0.326s
sys 0m16.806s
------------ bs=8K / count=256K / 3 ------------------
262144+0 records in
262144+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 17.0085 s, 126 MB/s
real 0m17.993s
user 0m0.442s
sys 0m16.588s
------------ bs=12K / count=171K / 1 ------------------
175104+0 records in
175104+0 records out
2151677952 bytes (2.2 GB) copied, 16.8474 s, 128 MB/s
real 0m16.860s
user 0m0.205s
sys 0m15.705s
------------ bs=12K / count=171K / 2 ------------------
175104+0 records in
175104+0 records out
2151677952 bytes (2.2 GB) copied, 16.6934 s, 129 MB/s
real 0m17.669s
user 0m0.227s
sys 0m16.355s
------------ bs=12K / count=171K / 3 ------------------
175104+0 records in
175104+0 records out
2151677952 bytes (2.2 GB) copied, 16.6684 s, 129 MB/s
real 0m17.654s
user 0m0.388s
sys 0m16.118s
------------ bs=16K / count=128K / 1 ------------------
131072+0 records in
131072+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 17.1845 s, 125 MB/s
real 0m17.200s
user 0m0.251s
sys 0m16.060s
------------ bs=16K / count=128K / 2 ------------------
131072+0 records in
131072+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 16.9221 s, 127 MB/s
real 0m17.902s
user 0m0.170s
sys 0m16.763s
------------ bs=16K / count=128K / 3 ------------------
131072+0 records in
131072+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 16.8845 s, 127 MB/s
real 0m17.868s
user 0m0.167s
sys 0m16.736s
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "U.Mutlu" <um@mutluit.com>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] drivers: ata: ahci_sunxi: Increased SATA/AHCI DMA TX/RX FIFOs
Date: Sat, 11 May 2019 20:12:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5CD71077.1020100@mutluit.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <jwvk1ex6rvb.fsf-monnier+gmane.comp.hardware.netbook.arm.sunxi@gnu.org>
Stefan Monnier wrote on 05/11/2019 03:37 PM:
>> Increasing the SATA/AHCI DMA TX/RX FIFOs (P0DMACR.TXTS and .RXTS) from
>> default 0x0 each to 0x3 each gives a write performance boost of 120MB/s
>> from lame 36MB/s to 45MB/s previously. Read performance is about 200MB/s
>> [tested on SSD using dd bs=4K count=512K].
>
> Such a simple patch to fix such a long-standing performance problem that
> everyone [ well, apparently not quite everyone ] assumed was a hardware
> limitation...
>
> And yet, April 1st is long gone.
>
> Is it really for real?
Yes, it's indeed real, Stefan; really no April 1st joke. :-)
As you indicated, this problem of slow SATA write-speed
with these small devices lasts now for more than 5 years.
This patch finally solves the problem.
On my test device (BPI-R1) the optimum blocksize seems to be 12K
as it then gives even 129 MB/s write speed.
Here are some test results with different blocksizes, all giving
a write speed of 125 to 129 MB/s:
time sh -c "dd if=/dev/zero of=test.tmp bs=$bs count=$count conv=fdatasync"
------------ bs=8K / count=256K / 1 ------------------
262144+0 records in
262144+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 16.9237 s, 127 MB/s
real 0m16.935s
user 0m0.388s
sys 0m15.777s
------------ bs=8K / count=256K / 2 ------------------
262144+0 records in
262144+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 16.9916 s, 126 MB/s
real 0m17.973s
user 0m0.326s
sys 0m16.806s
------------ bs=8K / count=256K / 3 ------------------
262144+0 records in
262144+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 17.0085 s, 126 MB/s
real 0m17.993s
user 0m0.442s
sys 0m16.588s
------------ bs=12K / count=171K / 1 ------------------
175104+0 records in
175104+0 records out
2151677952 bytes (2.2 GB) copied, 16.8474 s, 128 MB/s
real 0m16.860s
user 0m0.205s
sys 0m15.705s
------------ bs=12K / count=171K / 2 ------------------
175104+0 records in
175104+0 records out
2151677952 bytes (2.2 GB) copied, 16.6934 s, 129 MB/s
real 0m17.669s
user 0m0.227s
sys 0m16.355s
------------ bs=12K / count=171K / 3 ------------------
175104+0 records in
175104+0 records out
2151677952 bytes (2.2 GB) copied, 16.6684 s, 129 MB/s
real 0m17.654s
user 0m0.388s
sys 0m16.118s
------------ bs=16K / count=128K / 1 ------------------
131072+0 records in
131072+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 17.1845 s, 125 MB/s
real 0m17.200s
user 0m0.251s
sys 0m16.060s
------------ bs=16K / count=128K / 2 ------------------
131072+0 records in
131072+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 16.9221 s, 127 MB/s
real 0m17.902s
user 0m0.170s
sys 0m16.763s
------------ bs=16K / count=128K / 3 ------------------
131072+0 records in
131072+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 16.8845 s, 127 MB/s
real 0m17.868s
user 0m0.167s
sys 0m16.736s
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: U.Mutlu <um@mutluit.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH] drivers: ata: ahci_sunxi: Increased SATA/AHCI DMA TX/RX FIFOs
Date: Sat, 11 May 2019 20:12:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5CD71077.1020100@mutluit.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <jwvk1ex6rvb.fsf-monnier+gmane.comp.hardware.netbook.arm.sunxi@gnu.org>
Stefan Monnier wrote on 05/11/2019 03:37 PM:
>> Increasing the SATA/AHCI DMA TX/RX FIFOs (P0DMACR.TXTS and .RXTS) from
>> default 0x0 each to 0x3 each gives a write performance boost of 120MB/s
>> from lame 36MB/s to 45MB/s previously. Read performance is about 200MB/s
>> [tested on SSD using dd bs=4K count=512K].
>
> Such a simple patch to fix such a long-standing performance problem that
> everyone [ well, apparently not quite everyone ] assumed was a hardware
> limitation...
>
> And yet, April 1st is long gone.
>
> Is it really for real?
Yes, it's indeed real, Stefan; really no April 1st joke. :-)
As you indicated, this problem of slow SATA write-speed
with these small devices lasts now for more than 5 years.
This patch finally solves the problem.
On my test device (BPI-R1) the optimum blocksize seems to be 12K
as it then gives even 129 MB/s write speed.
Here are some test results with different blocksizes, all giving
a write speed of 125 to 129 MB/s:
time sh -c "dd if=/dev/zero of=test.tmp bs=$bs count=$count conv=fdatasync"
------------ bs=8K / count=256K / 1 ------------------
262144+0 records in
262144+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 16.9237 s, 127 MB/s
real 0m16.935s
user 0m0.388s
sys 0m15.777s
------------ bs=8K / count=256K / 2 ------------------
262144+0 records in
262144+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 16.9916 s, 126 MB/s
real 0m17.973s
user 0m0.326s
sys 0m16.806s
------------ bs=8K / count=256K / 3 ------------------
262144+0 records in
262144+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 17.0085 s, 126 MB/s
real 0m17.993s
user 0m0.442s
sys 0m16.588s
------------ bs=12K / count=171K / 1 ------------------
175104+0 records in
175104+0 records out
2151677952 bytes (2.2 GB) copied, 16.8474 s, 128 MB/s
real 0m16.860s
user 0m0.205s
sys 0m15.705s
------------ bs=12K / count=171K / 2 ------------------
175104+0 records in
175104+0 records out
2151677952 bytes (2.2 GB) copied, 16.6934 s, 129 MB/s
real 0m17.669s
user 0m0.227s
sys 0m16.355s
------------ bs=12K / count=171K / 3 ------------------
175104+0 records in
175104+0 records out
2151677952 bytes (2.2 GB) copied, 16.6684 s, 129 MB/s
real 0m17.654s
user 0m0.388s
sys 0m16.118s
------------ bs=16K / count=128K / 1 ------------------
131072+0 records in
131072+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 17.1845 s, 125 MB/s
real 0m17.200s
user 0m0.251s
sys 0m16.060s
------------ bs=16K / count=128K / 2 ------------------
131072+0 records in
131072+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 16.9221 s, 127 MB/s
real 0m17.902s
user 0m0.170s
sys 0m16.763s
------------ bs=16K / count=128K / 3 ------------------
131072+0 records in
131072+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 16.8845 s, 127 MB/s
real 0m17.868s
user 0m0.167s
sys 0m16.736s
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-11 18:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-10 19:25 [RFC PATCH] drivers: ata: ahci_sunxi: Increased SATA/AHCI DMA TX/RX FIFOs Uenal Mutlu
2019-05-10 19:25 ` [U-Boot] " Uenal Mutlu
2019-05-10 19:25 ` Uenal Mutlu
2019-05-10 19:25 ` Uenal Mutlu
2019-05-11 13:37 ` Stefan Monnier
[not found] ` <jwvk1ex6rvb.fsf-monnier+gmane.comp.hardware.netbook.arm.sunxi-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org>
2019-05-11 18:12 ` U.Mutlu [this message]
2019-05-11 18:12 ` [U-Boot] " U.Mutlu
2019-05-11 18:12 ` U.Mutlu
2019-05-11 18:12 ` U.Mutlu
[not found] ` <20190510192550.17458-1-um-lNbj7F0cCK5BDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
2019-05-12 12:12 ` Maxime Ripard
2019-05-12 12:12 ` [U-Boot] " Maxime Ripard
2019-05-12 12:12 ` Maxime Ripard
2019-05-12 12:12 ` Maxime Ripard
2019-05-12 16:08 ` U.Mutlu
2019-05-12 16:08 ` [U-Boot] " U.Mutlu
2019-05-12 16:08 ` U.Mutlu
2019-05-12 16:08 ` U.Mutlu
[not found] ` <5CD844F3.5080103-lNbj7F0cCK5BDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
2019-05-12 17:40 ` Maxime Ripard
2019-05-12 17:40 ` [U-Boot] " Maxime Ripard
2019-05-12 17:40 ` Maxime Ripard
2019-05-12 17:40 ` Maxime Ripard
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=5CD71077.1020100@mutluit.com \
--to=um-lnbj7f0cck5bdgjk7y7tuq@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-ide-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org \
--cc=monnier-CRDzTM1onBSWkKpYnGOUKg@public.gmane.org \
--cc=u-boot-0aAXYlwwYIKGBzrmiIFOJg@public.gmane.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.