From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <chris@void.printf.net>
Received: from void.printf.net (void.printf.net [89.145.121.20])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10279B6EDD
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Thu,  9 Sep 2010 08:06:11 +1000 (EST)
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 23:05:48 +0100
From: Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org>
To: Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] sdhci: Move real work out of an atomic context
Message-ID: <20100908220548.GA7967@void.printf.net>
References: <20100714130728.GA27339@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru>
	<20100907153813.936db0c6.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<20100908213740.GA7550@void.printf.net>
	<20100908215750.GA17232@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20100908215750.GA17232@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru>
Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@console-pimps.org>,
	Albert Herranz <albert_herranz@yahoo.es>,
	linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Pierre Ossman <pierre@ossman.eu>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

Hi Anton,

On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 01:57:50AM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> Thanks!
> 
> Would be also great if you could point out which patch causes
> most of the performance drop (if any)?
> 
> Albert, if you could find time, can you also "bisect" the
> patchset? I wouldn't want to buy Nintendo WII just to debug the
> perf regression. ;-) FWIW, I tried to disable multiblock
> read/writes and test with SD cards, and still didn't notice
> any performance drops.
> 
> Maybe it's SDIO IRQs that cause the performance drop for the
> WII case, as we delay them a little bit? Or it could be the
> patch that introduces threaded IRQ handler in whole causes
> it. If so, I guess we'd need to move some of the processing to
> the real IRQ context, keeping the handler lockless (if
> possible) or introducing a very fine grained locking.

I didn't know anything about a reported performance drop, and I don't
think Andrew did either -- Albert's test results don't seem to have
made it to this list, or anywhere else that I can see.  Could you 
link to/repost his comments?

(I'll be testing with libertas, so that will stress-test SDIO IRQs.)

Thanks,

-- 
Chris Ball   <cjb@laptop.org>   <http://printf.net/>
One Laptop Per Child