From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: MMC quirks relating to performance/lifetime. Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:49:13 +0100 Message-ID: <201102221749.13992.arnd@arndb.de> References: <201102201623.03596.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:53828 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754509Ab1BVQtW (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:49:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Andrei Warkentin Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Linus Walleij , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 22 February 2011, Andrei Warkentin wrote: > On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > The description of the test case is probably suboptimal. What this does > > is 32 KB accesses, with 32 KB alignment in the pre and post case, but 16 KB > > alignment in the "on" case. The idea here is that it should never do > > any access with less than "--blocksize" aligment. > > > > Now I feel slightly confused :(. > > -b 16384 implies blocksize = 16384, maxalign is 8mb due to count 32, > > ret = time_rw_interval(dev, count, pre, blocksize, > align - blocksize, maxalign, > do_write); // > <----------------- read 16k at align - 16k with 8mb intervals? > returnif(ret); > > ret = time_rw_interval(dev, count, on, blocksize, > align - blocksize / 2, maxalign, > do_write); // > <----------------- read 16k at align - 8k with 8mb intervals? > returnif(ret); > > ret = time_rw_interval(dev, count, post, blocksize, > align, maxalign, do_write); // > <-------- read 16k at align with 8mb intervals? > returnif(ret); > > I hope I'm not missing something obvious... No, you are absolutely right. I think I changed this once and no longer remembered what the final version did. Arnd