linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Per Forlin <per.forlin@linaro.org>
To: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@csr.com>
Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org,
	Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] mmc: add none blocking mmc request function
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:22:12 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <BANLkTinVL7NJpgGF0KZAdmqgyu2pXyKFkA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4DB6C89F.10903@csr.com>

On 26 April 2011 15:29, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@csr.com> wrote:
> On 20/04/11 08:17, Per Forlin wrote:
>>
>>> Using a MMC request queue has other benefits -- it allows multiple users
>>> without having to claim/release the host.  This would be useful for
>>> (especially multi-function) SDIO.
>>
>> You mean claim and release would be done only within the mmc core. The
>> timed saved here would equal the time it takes to release and claim
>> the host.
>> Claim and release can also be used for power management to indicate if
>> any client is using the host, if not the power can be switched off.
>
> Isn't there a separate runtime power management API that different from
> claim/release?
>
I misunderstood. I thought you meant that the claim() and release()
were not needed if having an internal request queue in core.c.
Please discard my comment.

>> I just want to make sure I understand the multi-function SDIO case, I
>> haven't done any work with SDIO.
>> Can the SDIO functions compete over the same claim_host at the same time?
>> Example: if function 1 claims the host, function 2 and function 3 also
>> want to claim the host but have to wait for function 1 to release the
>> host.
>
> This is the case.   Each function driver has to claim exclusive access
> to the host.
>
>> What is the extra benefit of having the internal request queue for
>> multi function SDIO?
>
> It reduces the delays between commands if multiple drivers are sending
> commands.  I estimated performance improvements with 2-3% from just
> removing the need to claim/release in one particular SDIO function
> driver.  Performance improvements for multi-function cards would be a
> bit more (5% perhaps?).
>
Your estimates are promising.

> The more important benefit is the simplification of the API.
I agree. I will make a prototype for this. I don't think I will be
able to find time for this until middle of May. I let know you when I
have patches.

>
> David
Thanks,
Per

  reply	other threads:[~2011-04-26 14:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-04-06 19:07 [PATCH v2 00/12] mmc: use nonblock mmc requests to minimize latency Per Forlin
2011-04-06 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 01/12] mmc: add none blocking mmc request function Per Forlin
2011-04-15 10:34   ` David Vrabel
2011-04-20  7:17     ` Per Forlin
2011-04-26 13:29       ` David Vrabel
2011-04-26 14:22         ` Per Forlin [this message]
2011-04-06 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 02/12] mmc: mmc_test: add debugfs file to list all tests Per Forlin
2011-04-06 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 03/12] mmc: mmc_test: add test for none blocking transfers Per Forlin
2011-04-17  7:09   ` Lin Tony-B19295
2011-04-20  7:30     ` Per Forlin
2011-04-17 15:46   ` Shawn Guo
2011-04-20  7:41     ` Per Forlin
2011-04-06 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 04/12] mmc: add member in mmc queue struct to hold request data Per Forlin
2011-04-06 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 05/12] mmc: add a block request prepare function Per Forlin
2011-04-06 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 06/12] mmc: move error code in mmc_block_issue_rw_rq to a separate function Per Forlin
2011-04-06 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 07/12] mmc: add a second mmc queue request member Per Forlin
2011-04-06 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 08/12] mmc: add handling for two parallel block requests in issue_rw_rq Per Forlin
2011-04-20 11:32   ` Per Forlin
2011-04-06 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 09/12] mmc: test: add random fault injection in core.c Per Forlin
2011-04-06 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 10/12] omap_hsmmc: use original sg_len for dma_unmap_sg Per Forlin
2011-04-06 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 11/12] omap_hsmmc: add support for pre_req and post_req Per Forlin
2011-04-06 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 12/12] mmci: implement pre_req() and post_req() Per Forlin
2011-04-08 16:49 ` [PATCH v2 00/12] mmc: use nonblock mmc requests to minimize latency Linus Walleij
2011-04-09 11:55   ` Jae hoon Chung
     [not found]     ` <BANLkTikwCveocjPdoMoLEVpNneKkq66s4g@mail.gmail.com>
2011-04-11  9:03       ` Per Forlin
2011-04-11  9:08     ` Per Forlin
2011-04-19 14:30       ` Jae hoon Chung
2011-04-16 15:48 ` Shawn Guo
2011-04-20  8:19   ` Per Forlin

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=BANLkTinVL7NJpgGF0KZAdmqgyu2pXyKFkA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=per.forlin@linaro.org \
    --cc=cjb@laptop.org \
    --cc=david.vrabel@csr.com \
    --cc=linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).