linux-arm-msm.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Konstantin Dorfman" <kdorfman@codeaurora.org>
To: Per Forlin <per.lkml@gmail.com>
Cc: Konstantin Dorfman <kdorfman@codeaurora.org>,
	linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	per.forlin@stericsson.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: fix async request mechanism for sequential read scenarios
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 18:17:29 +0200 (IST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0861696a510e833409520496cfe84d3c.squirrel@www.codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFEEs1=zU88dwY1K0+Q9PxdqyOpsNMtj6mZ3YkwebPugofyEEw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 17:19:01 +0200, Per Forlin <per.lkml@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello Per,

>I would like to start with some basic comments.
>
>1. Is this read sequential issue specific to MMC?
>2. Or is it common with all other block-drivers that gets data from
>the block layer (SCSI/SATA etc) ?
>If (#2) can the issue be addressed inside the block layer instead?
>
>BR
>Per
This issue specific to MMC, others block drivers probably not using
MMC mechanism for async request (or have more kernel threads for
processing incoming blk requests).
I think, since MMC actively fetches requests from block layer queue,
the solution has nothing to do with block layer context.

>
>On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Konstantin Dorfman
><kdorfman@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> The main assumption of the async request design is that the file
>> system adds block requests to the block device queue asynchronously
>> without waiting for completion (see the Rationale section of
>> https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/Kernel/Specs
>> /StoragePerfMMC-async-req).
>>
>> We found out that in case of sequential read operations this is not
>> the case, due to the read ahead mechanism.
>Would it be possible to improve this mechanism to achieve the same result?
>Allow an outstanding read ahead request on top of the current ongoing one.
>

I need to look on this mechanism,  but from first glance such
behaviour may be result of libc/vfs/fs decisions and too complex
comparing to the patch we are talking about.


-- 
Konstantin Dorfman,
QUALCOMM ISRAEL, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

  reply	other threads:[~2012-10-14 16:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-10-02 15:39 [PATCH] mmc: fix async request mechanism for sequential read scenarios Konstantin Dorfman
2012-10-02 15:39 ` Konstantin Dorfman
2012-10-11 15:19   ` Per Forlin
2012-10-14 16:17     ` Konstantin Dorfman [this message]
2012-10-21 22:22       ` Per Forlin
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-10-02 15:36 Konstantin Dorfman

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=0861696a510e833409520496cfe84d3c.squirrel@www.codeaurora.org \
    --to=kdorfman@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=per.forlin@stericsson.com \
    --cc=per.lkml@gmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).