From: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@samsung.com>
To: Per Forlin <per.forlin@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dev@lists.linaro.org,
Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] mmc: add double buffering for mmc block requests
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:35:09 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D34FC5D.5080605@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1294856043-13447-1-git-send-email-per.forlin@linaro.org>
Hi Per..
it is interesting approach..so
we want to test your double buffering in our environment(Samsung SoC).
Did you test with SDHCI?
If you tested with SDHCI, i want to know how much increase the performance.
Thanks,
Jaehoon Chung
Per Forlin wrote:
> Add support to prepare one MMC request while another is active on
> the host. This is done by making the issue_rw_rq() asynchronous.
> The increase in throughput is proportional to the time it takes to
> prepare a request and how fast the memory is. The faster the MMC/SD is
> the more significant the prepare request time becomes. Measurements on U5500
> and U8500 on eMMC shows significant performance gain for DMA on MMC for large
> reads. In the PIO case there is some gain in performance for large reads too.
> There seems to be no or small performance gain for write, don't have a good
> explanation for this yet.
>
> There are two optional hooks pre_req() and post_req() that the host driver
> may implement in order to improve double buffering. In the DMA case pre_req()
> may do dma_map_sg() and prepare the dma descriptor and post_req runs the
> dma_unmap_sg.
>
> The mmci host driver implementation for double buffering is not intended
> nor ready for mainline yet. It is only an example of how to implement
> pre_req() and post_req(). The reason for this is that the basic DMA support
> for MMCI is not complete yet. The mmci patches are sent in a separate patch
> series "[FYI 0/4] arm: mmci: example implementation of double buffering".
>
> Issues/Questions for issue_rw_rq() in block.c:
> * Is it safe to claim the host for the first MMC request and wait to release
> it until the MMC queue is empty again? Or must the host be claimed and
> released for every request?
> * Is it possible to predict the result from __blk_end_request().
> If there are no errors for a completed MMC request and the
> blk_rq_bytes(req) == data.bytes_xfered, will it be guaranteed that
> __blk_end_request will return 0?
>
> Here follows the IOZone results for u8500 v1.1 on eMMC.
> The numbers for DMA are a bit to good here due to the fact that the
> CPU speed is decreased compared to u8500 v2. This makes the cache handling
> even more significant.
>
> Command line used: ./iozone -az -i0 -i1 -i2 -s 50m -I -f /iozone.tmp -e -R -+u
>
> Relative diff: VANILLA-MMC-PIO -> 2BUF-MMC-PIO
> cpu load is abs diff
> random random
> KB reclen write rewrite read reread read write
> 51200 4 +0% +0% +0% +0% +0% +0%
> cpu: +0.1 -0.1 -0.5 -0.3 -0.1 -0.0
>
> 51200 8 +0% +0% +6% +6% +8% +0%
> cpu: +0.1 -0.1 -0.3 -0.4 -0.8 +0.0
>
> 51200 16 +0% -2% +0% +0% -3% +0%
> cpu: +0.0 -0.2 +0.0 +0.0 -0.2 +0.0
>
> 51200 32 +0% +1% +0% +0% +0% +0%
> cpu: +0.1 +0.0 -0.3 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0
>
> 51200 64 +0% +0% +0% +0% +0% +0%
> cpu: +0.1 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0
>
> 51200 128 +0% +1% +1% +1% +1% +0%
> cpu: +0.0 +0.2 +0.1 -0.3 +0.4 +0.0
>
> 51200 256 +0% +0% +1% +1% +1% +0%
> cpu: +0.0 -0.0 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.0
>
> 51200 512 +0% +1% +2% +2% +2% +0%
> cpu: +0.1 +0.0 +0.2 +0.2 +0.2 +0.1
>
> 51200 1024 +0% +2% +2% +2% +3% +0%
> cpu: +0.2 +0.1 +0.2 +0.5 -0.8 +0.0
>
> 51200 2048 +0% +2% +3% +3% +3% +0%
> cpu: +0.0 -0.2 +0.4 +0.8 -0.5 +0.2
>
> 51200 4096 +0% +1% +3% +3% +3% +1%
> cpu: +0.2 +0.1 +0.9 +0.9 +0.5 +0.1
>
> 51200 8192 +1% +0% +3% +3% +3% +1%
> cpu: +0.2 +0.2 +1.3 +1.3 +1.0 +0.0
>
> 51200 16384 +0% +1% +3% +3% +3% +1%
> cpu: +0.2 +0.1 +1.0 +1.3 +1.0 +0.5
>
> Relative diff: VANILLA-MMC-DMA -> 2BUF-MMC-MMCI-DMA
> cpu load is abs diff
> random random
> KB reclen write rewrite read reread read write
> 51200 4 +0% -3% +6% +5% +5% +0%
> cpu: +0.0 -0.2 -0.6 -0.1 +0.3 +0.0
>
> 51200 8 +0% +0% +7% +7% +7% +0%
> cpu: +0.0 +0.1 +0.8 +0.6 +0.9 +0.0
>
> 51200 16 +0% +0% +7% +7% +8% +0%
> cpu: +0.0 -0.0 +0.7 +0.7 +0.8 +0.0
>
> 51200 32 +0% +0% +8% +8% +9% +0%
> cpu: +0.0 +0.1 +0.7 +0.7 +0.3 +0.0
>
> 51200 64 +0% +1% +9% +9% +9% +0%
> cpu: +0.0 +0.0 +0.8 +0.7 +0.8 +0.0
>
> 51200 128 +1% +0% +13% +13% +14% +0%
> cpu: +0.2 +0.0 +1.0 +1.0 +1.1 +0.0
>
> 51200 256 +1% +2% +8% +8% +11% +0%
> cpu: +0.0 +0.3 +0.0 +0.7 +1.5 +0.0
>
> 51200 512 +1% +2% +16% +16% +17% +0%
> cpu: +0.2 +0.2 +2.2 +2.1 +2.2 +0.1
>
> 51200 1024 +1% +2% +20% +20% +20% +1%
> cpu: +0.2 +0.1 +2.6 +1.9 +2.6 +0.0
>
> 51200 2048 +0% +2% +22% +22% +21% +0%
> cpu: +0.0 +0.3 +2.3 +2.9 +2.1 -0.0
>
> 51200 4096 +1% +2% +23% +23% +23% +1%
> cpu: +0.2 +0.1 +2.0 +3.2 +3.1 +0.0
>
> 51200 8192 +1% +5% +24% +24% +24% +1%
> cpu: +1.4 -0.0 +4.2 +3.0 +2.8 +0.1
>
> 51200 16384 +1% +3% +24% +24% +24% +2%
> cpu: +0.0 +0.3 +3.4 +3.8 +3.7 +0.1
>
> Here follows the IOZone results for u5500 on eMMC.
> These numbers for DMA are more as expected.
>
> Command line used: ./iozone -az -i0 -i1 -i2 -s 50m -I -f /iozone.tmp -e -R -+u
>
> Relative diff: VANILLA-MMC-DMA -> 2BUF-MMC-MMCI-DMA
> cpu load is abs diff
> random random
> KB reclen write rewrite read reread read write
> 51200 128 +1% +1% +10% +9% +10% +0%
> cpu: +0.1 +0.0 +1.3 +0.1 +0.8 +0.1
>
> 51200 256 +2% +2% +7% +7% +9% +0%
> cpu: +0.1 +0.4 +0.5 +0.6 +0.7 +0.0
>
> 51200 512 +2% +2% +12% +12% +12% +1%
> cpu: +0.4 +0.6 +1.8 +2.4 +2.4 +0.2
>
> 51200 1024 +2% +3% +14% +14% +14% +0%
> cpu: +0.3 +0.1 +2.1 +1.4 +1.4 +0.2
>
> 51200 2048 +3% +3% +16% +16% +16% +1%
> cpu: +0.2 +0.2 +2.5 +1.8 +2.4 -0.2
>
> 51200 4096 +3% +3% +17% +17% +18% +3%
> cpu: +0.1 -0.1 +2.7 +2.0 +2.7 -0.1
>
> 51200 8192 +3% +3% +18% +18% +18% +3%
> cpu: -0.1 +0.2 +3.0 +2.3 +2.2 +0.2
>
> 51200 16384 +3% +3% +18% +18% +18% +4%
> cpu: +0.2 +0.2 +2.8 +3.5 +2.4 -0.0
>
> Per Forlin (5):
> mmc: add member in mmc queue struct to hold request data
> mmc: Add a block request prepare function
> mmc: Add a second mmc queue request member
> mmc: Store the mmc block request struct in mmc queue
> mmc: Add double buffering for mmc block requests
>
> drivers/mmc/card/block.c | 337 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> drivers/mmc/card/queue.c | 171 +++++++++++++++---------
> drivers/mmc/card/queue.h | 31 +++-
> drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 77 +++++++++--
> include/linux/mmc/core.h | 7 +-
> include/linux/mmc/host.h | 8 +
> 6 files changed, 432 insertions(+), 199 deletions(-)
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-18 2:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-12 18:13 [PATCH 0/5] mmc: add double buffering for mmc block requests Per Forlin
2011-01-12 18:13 ` [PATCH 1/5] mmc: add member in mmc queue struct to hold request data Per Forlin
2011-01-12 18:14 ` [PATCH 2/5] mmc: Add a block request prepare function Per Forlin
2011-01-12 18:14 ` [PATCH 3/5] mmc: Add a second mmc queue request member Per Forlin
2011-01-12 18:14 ` [PATCH 4/5] mmc: Store the mmc block request struct in mmc queue Per Forlin
2011-01-12 18:14 ` [PATCH 5/5] mmc: Add double buffering for mmc block requests Per Forlin
2011-01-12 18:24 ` [PATCH 0/5] mmc: add " Per Forlin
2011-01-18 2:35 ` Jaehoon Chung [this message]
2011-01-18 8:12 ` Per Forlin
[not found] ` <AANLkTimjfO4Wb0f87X_sDugW=yU1=YEQn35uZnsKKwq2-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2011-01-28 8:28 ` Per Forlin
2011-01-30 8:23 ` Jaehoon Chung
2011-02-05 17:02 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-02-05 20:36 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
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=4D34FC5D.5080605@samsung.com \
--to=jh80.chung@samsung.com \
--cc=cjb@laptop.org \
--cc=dev@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=kyungmin.park@samsung.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=per.forlin@linaro.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox