Re: MMC quirks relating to performance/lifetime.

[Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>]

On Saturday 19 February 2011 00:17:51 Andrei Warkentin wrote:
> # echo 0 > /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/page_size
> # ./flashbench -A -b 1024 /dev/block/mmcblk0p9
> write align 8388608     pre 3.59ms      on 6.54ms       post 3.65ms     diff 2.92ms
> write align 4194304     pre 4.13ms      on 7.37ms       post 4.27ms     diff 3.17ms
> write align 2097152     pre 3.62ms      on 6.81ms       post 3.94ms     diff 3.03ms
> write align 1048576     pre 3.62ms      on 6.53ms       post 3.55ms     diff 2.95ms
> write align 524288      pre 3.62ms      on 6.51ms       post 3.63ms     diff 2.88ms
> write align 262144      pre 3.62ms      on 6.51ms       post 3.63ms     diff 2.89ms
> write align 131072      pre 3.62ms      on 6.5ms        post 3.63ms     diff 2.88ms
> write align 65536       pre 3.61ms      on 6.49ms       post 3.62ms     diff 2.88ms
> write align 32768       pre 3.61ms      on 6.49ms       post 3.61ms     diff 2.88ms
> write align 16384       pre 3.68ms      on 107ms        post 3.51ms     diff 103ms
> write align 8192        pre 3.74ms      on 121ms        post 3.91ms     diff 117ms
> write align 4096        pre 3.88ms      on 3.87ms       post 3.87ms     diff -2937ns
> write align 2048        pre 3.89ms      on 3.88ms       post 3.88ms     diff -8734ns
> # fjnh84@fjnh84-desktop:~/src/n/src/flash$ adb -s 17006185428011d7 shell
> # echo 8192 > /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/page_size
> # cd data
> # ./flashbench -A -b 1024 /dev/block/mmcblk0p9
> write align 8388608     pre 3.33ms      on 6.8ms        post 3.65ms     diff 3.31ms
> write align 4194304     pre 4.34ms      on 8.14ms       post 4.53ms     diff 3.71ms
> write align 2097152     pre 3.64ms      on 7.31ms       post 4.09ms     diff 3.44ms
> write align 1048576     pre 3.65ms      on 7.52ms       post 3.65ms     diff 3.87ms
> write align 524288      pre 3.62ms      on 6.8ms        post 3.63ms     diff 3.17ms
> write align 262144      pre 3.62ms      on 6.84ms       post 3.63ms     diff 3.22ms
> write align 131072      pre 3.62ms      on 6.85ms       post 3.44ms     diff 3.32ms
> write align 65536       pre 3.39ms      on 6.8ms        post 3.66ms     diff 3.28ms
> write align 32768       pre 3.64ms      on 6.86ms       post 3.66ms     diff 3.21ms
> write align 16384       pre 3.67ms      on 6.86ms       post 3.65ms     diff 3.2ms
> write align 8192        pre 3.66ms      on 6.84ms       post 3.64ms     diff 3.19ms
> write align 4096        pre 3.71ms      on 3.71ms       post 3.64ms     diff 38.6µs
> write align 2048        pre 3.71ms      on 3.71ms       post 3.72ms     diff -656ns
> 
> This was with the split unaligned accesses patch... Which I am
> attaching for comments.

I agree, this is very fascinating behavior. 100ms second latency for a
single 2KB access is definitely something we should try to avoid, and I
wonder why the drive decides to do that. It must get into a state where
it requires an extra garbage collection (you mentioned that earlier).

The numbers you see here are taken over multiple runs. Do you see a lot
of fluctuation when doing this with --count=1?

Also, does the same happen with other blocksizes, e.g. 4096 or 8192, passed
to flashbench?

	Arnd