From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
"Kreuzer, Michael \(NSN - DE/Ulm\)" <michael.kreuzer@nsn.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch] fix MTD CFI/LPDDR flash driver huge latency bug
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:38:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100312233820.GH6491@shareable.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100312142344.174bd46f.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:48:57 +0100
> Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net> wrote:
>
> > This patch fix a huge latency problem in the MTD CFI and LPDDR flash
> > drivers.
> >
> > The use of a memcpy() during a spinlock operation will cause very long
> > thread context switch delays if the flash chip bandwidth is low and the
> > data to be copied large, because a spinlock will disable preemption.
> >
> > For example: A flash with 6,5 MB/s bandwidth will cause under ubifs,
> > which request sometimes 128 KB (the flash erase size), a preemption
> > delay of 20 milliseconds. High priority threads will not be served
> > during this time, regardless whether this threads access the flash or
> > not. This behavior breaks real time.
I agree that's a problem, and it's not just real time that's affected.
I've just realised I have a video player with ~1.5 MB/s bandwidth
64kb/block flash attached, and this might be the reason JFFS2 activity
makes video play less smooth on it. 44ms is even worse.
> > The patch change all the use of spin_lock operations for xxxx->mutex
> > into mutex operations, which is exact what the name says and means.
It would be even better if it also split the critical sections into
smaller ones with cond_resched() between, so that non-preemptible
kernels benefit too.
> > There is no performance regression since the mutex is normally not
> > acquired.
>
> hm, big scary patch. Are you sure this mutex is never taken from
> atomic or irq contexts? Is it ully tested with all relevant debug options
> and lockdep enabled?
Including from mtdoops?
-- Jamie
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-12 23:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-06 16:48 [Patch] fix MTD CFI/LPDDR flash driver huge latency bug Stefani Seibold
2010-03-12 22:23 ` Andrew Morton
2010-03-12 23:38 ` Jamie Lokier [this message]
2010-03-13 12:35 ` Stefani Seibold
2010-03-15 3:03 ` Jamie Lokier
2010-03-15 6:15 ` Stefani Seibold
2010-03-15 14:24 ` Jamie Lokier
2010-03-19 8:29 ` David Woodhouse
2010-03-19 8:40 ` Jamie Lokier
2010-03-13 12:31 ` Stefani Seibold
2010-03-13 11:25 ` Andrew Morton
2010-03-13 17:00 ` Stefani Seibold
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-02-28 17:00 Stefani Seibold
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=20100312233820.GH6491@shareable.org \
--to=jamie@shareable.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=michael.kreuzer@nsn.com \
--cc=stefani@seibold.net \
/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).