From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
"Kreuzer, Michael (NSN - DE/Ulm)" <michael.kreuzer@nsn.com>,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch] fix MTD CFI/LPDDR flash driver huge latency bug
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:03:38 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100315030338.GR6491@shareable.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1268483744.6339.25.camel@wall-e>
Stefani Seibold wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 12.03.2010, 23:38 +0000 schrieb Jamie Lokier:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:48:57 +0100
> > > Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net> wrote:
> > >
>
>
> > > > 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.
>
> The problem is the memcpy operation which is very slow. A cond_resched
> wouldn't help, since the cpu bus is blocked during the transfer of the
> word.
I mean split the memcpy into multiple smaller memcpys, so that the
total time in each memcpy is limited to something reasonable.
The check in cond_resched() is fast, especially once cached. memcpy
speed depends a lot on the attached flash and how everything's
configured, varying from 2.5MB/s up to hundreds of MB/s. So how about
doing cond_resched() every 256 bytes?
-- Jamie
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-15 3:04 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
2010-03-13 12:35 ` Stefani Seibold
2010-03-15 3:03 ` Jamie Lokier [this message]
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=20100315030338.GR6491@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