From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Manoj Iyer Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: Added quirks for Ricoh 1180:e823 lower base clock frequency Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:09:10 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: References: <1310419715-13254-1-git-send-email-manoj.iyer@canonical.com> <1310419715-13254-2-git-send-email-manoj.iyer@canonical.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323329-862678198-1310490555=:1767" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Ball Cc: Manoj Iyer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org, matsumur@nts.ricoh.co.jp, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323329-862678198-1310490555=:1767 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Chris, btw only the 1st write was slower, subsequent writes looks ok. =3D=3D=3D before =3D=3D =3D=3D=3D after =3D=3D real 0m0.480s vs real 0m0.757s real 0m0.476s vs real 0m0.488s real 0m0.484s vs real 0m0.484s real 0m0.480s vs real 0m0.486s I have attached the output of flashbench and the time test to http://launchpad.net/bugs/773524 Might be easier for side by side comparison. But I have it pasted here as= =20 well. =3D=3D=3D FLASHBENCH =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D BEFORE PATCH =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D Guess erase block and page sizes =3D=3D u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ sudo ./flashbench -a /dev/mmcblk0=20 --blocksize=3D1024 align 536870912 pre 1.49ms on 3.42ms post 3.06ms diff=20 1.15ms align 268435456 pre 1.51ms on 3.7ms post 3.09ms diff 1.4ms align 134217728 pre 2.19ms on 3.64ms post 3.05ms diff=20 1.03ms align 67108864 pre 1.49ms on 3.53ms post 3.1ms diff=20 1.23ms align 33554432 pre 2.45ms on 3.79ms post 3.12ms diff 999=C2= =B5s align 16777216 pre 1.46ms on 3.52ms post 3.1ms diff=20 1.24ms align 8388608 pre 1.46ms on 3.52ms post 3.1ms diff=20 1.24ms align 4194304 pre 1.46ms on 3.52ms post 3.1ms diff=20 1.24ms align 2097152 pre 1.46ms on 3.52ms post 3.1ms diff=20 1.24ms align 1048576 pre 2.02ms on 3.79ms post 3.12ms diff=20 1.22ms align 524288 pre 2.22ms on 2.39ms post 2.41ms diff=20 77.6=C2=B5s align 262144 pre 2.43ms on 2.61ms post 2.61ms diff=20 95.8=C2=B5s align 131072 pre 2.58ms on 2.77ms post 2.73ms diff 111=C2= =B5s align 65536 pre 2.65ms on 2.87ms post 2.74ms diff 169=C2= =B5s align 32768 pre 2.7ms on 2.88ms post 2.84ms diff 107=C2= =B5s align 16384 pre 2.73ms on 2.91ms post 2.87ms diff 111=C2= =B5s align 8192 pre 2.74ms on 2.92ms post 2.88ms diff 109=C2= =B5s align 4096 pre 2.9ms on 2.86ms post 2.83ms diff=20 -7395ns align 2048 pre 2.88ms on 2.87ms post 2.86ms diff=20 2.28=C2=B5s u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ =3D=3D Finding the number of open erase blocks =3D=3D u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ sudo ./flashbench -O --erasesize=3D$[4 * 1024 *=20 1024] --blocksize=3D$[256 * 1024] /dev/mmcblk0 --open-au-nr=3D2 4MiB 6.36M/s 2MiB 6.24M/s 1MiB 6.17M/s 512KiB 6.19M/s 256KiB 6.22M/s u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ sudo ./flashbench -O --erasesize=3D$[4 * 1024 *=20 1024] --blocksize=3D$[256 * 1024] /dev/mmcblk0 --open-au-nr=3D3 4MiB 6.25M/s 2MiB 6.25M/s 1MiB 6.24M/s 512KiB 2.53M/s 256KiB 1.14M/s u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D AFTER PATCH =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D Guess erase block and page sizes =3D=3D u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ sudo ./flashbench -a /dev/mmcblk0 --blocksize=3D102= 4 [sudo] password for u: align 536870912 pre 1.56ms on 3.53ms post 3.14ms diff=20 1.18ms align 268435456 pre 1.54ms on 3.52ms post 3.12ms diff=20 1.19ms align 134217728 pre 1.5ms on 3.5ms post 3.1ms diff 1.2ms align 67108864 pre 1.56ms on 3.68ms post 3.2ms diff 1.3ms align 33554432 pre 1.55ms on 3.6ms post 3.15ms diff=20 1.25ms align 16777216 pre 1.57ms on 3.62ms post 3.18ms diff=20 1.25ms align 8388608 pre 1.57ms on 3.61ms post 3.16ms diff=20 1.24ms align 4194304 pre 1.55ms on 3.6ms post 3.16ms diff=20 1.24ms align 2097152 pre 1.56ms on 3.61ms post 3.22ms diff=20 1.22ms align 1048576 pre 1.57ms on 3.62ms post 3.16ms diff=20 1.25ms align 524288 pre 2.23ms on 2.42ms post 2.44ms diff 81=C2= =B5s align 262144 pre 2.49ms on 2.67ms post 2.61ms diff 115=C2= =B5s align 131072 pre 2.68ms on 2.87ms post 2.8ms diff 129=C2= =B5s align 65536 pre 2.78ms on 2.98ms post 2.85ms diff 172=C2= =B5s align 32768 pre 2.8ms on 2.99ms post 2.94ms diff 117=C2= =B5s align 16384 pre 2.81ms on 2.99ms post 2.95ms diff 117=C2= =B5s align 8192 pre 2.86ms on 3ms post 3.01ms diff 68.6=C2=B5s align 4096 pre 2.96ms on 2.93ms post 2.93ms diff=20 -14207n align 2048 pre 2.98ms on 3ms post 2.98ms diff 20.1=C2=B5s u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ =3D=3D Finding the number of open erase blocks =3D=3D u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ sudo ./flashbench -O --erasesize=3D$[4 * 1024 *=20 1024] --blocksize=3D$[256 * 1024] /dev/mmcblk0 --open-au-nr=3D2 [sudo] password for u: 4MiB 5.49M/s 2MiB 6.22M/s 1MiB 6.22M/s 512KiB 6.21M/s 256KiB 6.21M/s u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ sudo ./flashbench -O --erasesize=3D$[4 * 1024 *=20 1024] --blocksize=3D$[256 * 1024] /dev/mmcblk0 --open-au-nr=3D3 [sudo] password for u: 4MiB 5.31M/s 2MiB 6.16M/s 1MiB 6.2M/s 512KiB 2.53M/s 256KiB 1.14M/s u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Chris Ball wrote: > Hi Manoj, > > On Tue, Jul 12 2011, Manoj Iyer wrote: >> Test System: ThinkPad X220 Tablet, using Sandisk 2GB Class 2 SD, I did >> not see any considerable change in read/write times. Also, tested a >> Transcend MMCPlus 2GB card, before the patch was applied it would not >> mount the card, and would cause IO errors on read/write, but after the >> patch it mounts and works correctly. >> [..] >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D BEFORE THE PATCH =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >> Sandisk 2GB Class2 SD >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >> =3D=3D=3D WRITE =3D=3D=3D >> u@u:~$ ls -lh test.file >> -rw-r--r-- 1 u u 10M 2011-07-12 10:19 test.file >> u@u:~$ time cp test.file /media/E0FD-1813/copyto >> >> real 0m0.480s >> user 0m0.000s >> sys 0m0.024s >> [..] >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D AFTER THE PATCH =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >> Sandisk 2GB Class2 SD >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >> >> =3D=3D=3D WRITE =3D=3D=3D >> u@u:~$ time cp ./test.file /media/E0FD-1813/copyto1 >> >> real 0m0.757s >> user 0m0.000s >> sys 0m0.044s > > This suggests that there *was* a considerable difference in write speed, = no? > > It might be helpful to use Arnd's flashbench tool=C2=B9 for further bench= marking, > since it does the right thing with using direct I/O access without caches= =2E > > Thanks, > > - Chris. > > =C2=B9: http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=3Dpeople/arnd/flashbench.git > --=20 > Chris Ball > One Laptop Per Child > > -- =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Manoj Iyer Ubuntu/Canonical Hardware Enablement =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D --8323329-862678198-1310490555=:1767--