| Message ID | 1387303344-11802-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 17 December 2013 19:02, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote: > From: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> > > In mmc_do_calc_max_discard(), if any value has been assigned to qty, > that value must have passed the timeout checks in the loop. Hence, > qty is the maximum number of erase blocks that fit within the timeout, > not the first value that does not fit into the timeout. In turn, this > means we don't need any special case for (qty == 1); any value of qty > needs to be multiplied by the card's erase shift, and we don't need to > decrement qty before doing so. > > Without this patch, on the NVIDIA Tegra Cardhu board, the loops result > in qty == 1, which is immediately returned. This causes discard to > operate a single sector at a time, which is chronically slow. With this > patch in place, discard operates a single erase block at a time, which > is reasonably fast. > > Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> > Cc: Dong Aisheng <dongas86@gmail.com> > Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> > Cc: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@mleia.com> > Fixes: e056a1b5b67b "(mmc: queue: let host controllers specify maximum discard timeout") > Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> > --- > If this makes sense, I wonder if it should be Cc: stable? > --- > drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 7 ++----- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c > index 57a2b403bf8e..dd793cf4ef46 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c > @@ -2150,16 +2150,13 @@ static unsigned int mmc_do_calc_max_discard(struct mmc_card *card, > if (!qty) > return 0; > > - if (qty == 1) > - return 1; > - > /* Convert qty to sectors */ > if (card->erase_shift) > - max_discard = --qty << card->erase_shift; > + max_discard = qty << card->erase_shift; > else if (mmc_card_sd(card)) > max_discard = qty; > else > - max_discard = --qty * card->erase_size; > + max_discard = qty * card->erase_size; > > return max_discard; > } > -- > 1.8.1.5 > I guess this patch on it's own seems reasonable, so we should maybe apply it as a short term solution!? To solve the real problem, I think we shall not consider the "max_discard_to" while calculating the max_discard value. Instead I think we shall be able to make an estimation of a fixed number of erase blocks (maybe considering the size of the card of something). Then we instead calculates what busy detection timeout, this fixed number of erase blocks, gives us. For hosts not supporting MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY, the calculated busy detection timeout will be of less importance, since I think we should rely on polling with CMD13 to find out when the erase operation is completed. For hosts supporting MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY, the calculated busy detection timeout can turn out to be bigger than what the host supports. In this case we need to decide whether we still should expect the host to handle busy detection but with an indefinite timeout, or if should prevent the host from using busy detection and do polling with CMD13 instead. Does this make sense? Kind regards Ulf Hansson -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 17/12/13 20:02, Stephen Warren wrote: > From: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> > > In mmc_do_calc_max_discard(), if any value has been assigned to qty, > that value must have passed the timeout checks in the loop. Hence, > qty is the maximum number of erase blocks that fit within the timeout, > not the first value that does not fit into the timeout. In turn, this > means we don't need any special case for (qty == 1); any value of qty > needs to be multiplied by the card's erase shift, and we don't need to > decrement qty before doing so. > > Without this patch, on the NVIDIA Tegra Cardhu board, the loops result > in qty == 1, which is immediately returned. This causes discard to > operate a single sector at a time, which is chronically slow. With this > patch in place, discard operates a single erase block at a time, which > is reasonably fast. > > Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> > Cc: Dong Aisheng <dongas86@gmail.com> > Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> > Cc: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@mleia.com> > Fixes: e056a1b5b67b "(mmc: queue: let host controllers specify maximum discard timeout") > Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> > --- > If this makes sense, I wonder if it should be Cc: stable? > --- > drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 7 ++----- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c > index 57a2b403bf8e..dd793cf4ef46 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c > @@ -2150,16 +2150,13 @@ static unsigned int mmc_do_calc_max_discard(struct mmc_card *card, > if (!qty) > return 0; > > - if (qty == 1) > - return 1; > - > /* Convert qty to sectors */ > if (card->erase_shift) > - max_discard = --qty << card->erase_shift; > + max_discard = qty << card->erase_shift; > else if (mmc_card_sd(card)) > max_discard = qty; > else > - max_discard = --qty * card->erase_size; > + max_discard = qty * card->erase_size; > > return max_discard; > } > The quantity is decreased by 1 to account for the fact that the erase can cross the boundary between 1 erase block and another. i.e. even though the size is 1 erase block it touches 2 erase blocks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 12/18/2013 04:08 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote: > On 17/12/13 20:02, Stephen Warren wrote: >> From: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> >> >> In mmc_do_calc_max_discard(), if any value has been assigned to qty, >> that value must have passed the timeout checks in the loop. Hence, >> qty is the maximum number of erase blocks that fit within the timeout, >> not the first value that does not fit into the timeout. In turn, this >> means we don't need any special case for (qty == 1); any value of qty >> needs to be multiplied by the card's erase shift, and we don't need to >> decrement qty before doing so. >> >> Without this patch, on the NVIDIA Tegra Cardhu board, the loops result >> in qty == 1, which is immediately returned. This causes discard to >> operate a single sector at a time, which is chronically slow. With this >> patch in place, discard operates a single erase block at a time, which >> is reasonably fast. ... > The quantity is decreased by 1 to account for the fact that the erase can > cross the boundary between 1 erase block and another. i.e. even though the > size is 1 erase block it touches 2 erase blocks. Don't erases have to be aligned to the erase block alignment; surely that's what the eMMC's preferred erase alignment is all about? If that isn't the case, a comment in the code would be extremely useful... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c index 57a2b403bf8e..dd793cf4ef46 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c @@ -2150,16 +2150,13 @@ static unsigned int mmc_do_calc_max_discard(struct mmc_card *card, if (!qty) return 0; - if (qty == 1) - return 1; - /* Convert qty to sectors */ if (card->erase_shift) - max_discard = --qty << card->erase_shift; + max_discard = qty << card->erase_shift; else if (mmc_card_sd(card)) max_discard = qty; else - max_discard = --qty * card->erase_size; + max_discard = qty * card->erase_size; return max_discard; }