[lkml]   [2012]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/1] mmc: block: Add write packing control

On Fri, July 27, 2012 2:07 am, S, Venkatraman wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:24 AM, <> wrote:
>> On Thu, July 26, 2012 8:28 am, S, Venkatraman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:14 PM, <> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, July 23, 2012 5:22 am, S, Venkatraman wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:13 PM, <> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, July 18, 2012 12:26 am, Chris Ball wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi, [removing Jens and the documentation list, since now we're
>>>> talking about the MMC side only]
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 18 2012, wrote:
>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that holds this patch from being pushed to
>>>>>> mmc-next?
>>>>>>> Yes, I'm still uncomfortable with the write packing patchsets for a
>>>>>> couple of reasons, and I suspect that the sum of those reasons means
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> we should probably plan on holding off merging it until after 3.6.
>>>>>>> Here are the open issues; please correct any misunderstandings:
>>>>>>> With
>>>> Seungwon's patchset ("Support packed write command"):
>>>>>>> * I still don't have a good set of representative benchmarks
>>>>>>> showing
>>>>>>> what kind of performance changes come with this patchset. It
>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>> like we've had a small amount of testing on one controller/eMMC part
>>>>>> combo
>>>>>> from Seungwon, and an entirely different test from Maya, and the
>>>> results
>>>>>> aren't documented fully anywhere to the level of describing what the
>>>> hardware was, what the test was, and what the results were before and
>>>> after the patchset.
>>>>>> Currently, there is only one card vendor that supports packed
>>>>>> commands.
>>>> Following are our sequential write (LMDD) test results on 2 of our
>>>> targets
>>>>>> (in MB/s):
>>>>>> No packing packing
>>>>>> Target 1 (SDR 50MHz) 15 25
>>>>>> Target 2 (DDR 50MHz) 20 30
>>>>>>> With the reads-during-writes regression:
>>>>>>> * Venkat still has open questions about the nature of the read
>>>>>>> regression, and thinks we should understand it with blktrace
>>>>>>> before
>>>>>> trying to fix it. Maya has a theory about writes overwhelming
>>>>>> reads,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> Venkat doesn't understand why this would explain the observed
>>>>>> bandwidth drop.
>>>>>> The degradation of read due to writes is not a new behavior and
>>>>>> exists
>>>> also without the write packing feature (which only increases the
>>>> degradation). Our investigation of this phenomenon led us to the
>>>> Conclusion that a new scheduling policy should be used for mobile
>>>> devices,
>>>>>> but this is not related to the current discussion of the write
>>>>>> packing
>>>> feature.
>>>>>> The write packing feature increases the degradation of read due to
>>>> write
>>>>>> since it allows the MMC to fetch many write requests in a row,
>>>>>> instead
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> fetching only one at a time. Therefore some of the read requests
>>>>>> will
>>>> have to wait for the completion of more write requests before they can
>>>> be
>>>>>> issued.
>>>>> I am a bit puzzled by this claim. One thing I checked carefully when
>>>> reviewing write packing patches from SJeon was that the code didn't
>>>> plough through a mixed list of reads and writes and selected only
>>>> writes.
>>>>> This section of the code in "mmc_blk_prep_packed_list()", from v8
>>>> patchset..
>>>>> <Quote>
>>>>> + if (rq_data_dir(cur) != rq_data_dir(next)) {
>>>>> + put_back = 1;
>>>>> + break;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> </Quote>
>>>>> means that once a read is encountered in the middle of write packing,
>>>> the packing is stopped at that point and it is executed. Then the next
>>>> blk_fetch_request should get the next read and continue as before.
>>>>> IOW, the ordering of reads and writes is _not_ altered when using
>>>>> packed
>>>> commands.
>>>>> For example if there were 5 write requests, followed by 1 read,
>>>>> followed by 5 more write requests in the request_queue, the first 5
>>>> writes will be executed as one "packed command", then the read will be
>>>> executed, and then the remaining 5 writes will be executed as one
>>>> "packed command". So the read does not have to wait any more than it
>>>> waited before (packing feature)
>>>> Let me try to better explain with your example.
>>>> Without packing the MMC layer will fetch 2 write requests and wait for
>>>> the
>>>> first write request completion before fetching another write request.
>>>> During this time the read request could be inserted into the CFQ and
>>>> since
>>>> it has higher priority than the async write it will be dispatched in
>>>> the
>>>> next fetch. So, the result would be 2 write requests followed by one
>>>> read
>>>> request and the read would have to wait for completion of only 2 write
>>>> requests.
>>>> With packing, all the 5 write requests will be fetched in a row, and
>>>> then
>>>> the read will arrive and be dispatched in the next fetch. Then the
>>>> read
>>>> will have to wait for the completion of 5 write requests.
>>>> Few more clarifications:
>>>> Due to the plug list mechanism in the block layer the applications can
>>>> "aggregate" several requests to be inserted into the scheduler before
>>>> waking the MMC queue thread.
>>>> This leads to a situation where there are several write requests in
>>>> the
>>>> CFQ queue when MMC starts to do the fetches.
>>>> If the read was inserted while we are building the packed command then
>>>> I
>>>> agree that we should have seen less effect on the read performance.
>>>> However, the write packing statistics show that in most of the cases
>>>> the
>>>> packing stopped due to an empty queue, meaning that the read was
>>>> inserted
>>>> to the CFQ after all the pending write requests were fetched and
>>>> packed.
>>>> Following is an example for write packing statistics of a READ/WRITE
>>>> parallel scenario:
>>>> write packing statistics:
>>>> Packed 1 reqs - 448 times
>>>> Packed 2 reqs - 38 times
>>>> Packed 3 reqs - 23 times
>>>> Packed 4 reqs - 30 times
>>>> Packed 5 reqs - 14 times
>>>> Packed 6 reqs - 8 times
>>>> Packed 7 reqs - 4 times
>>>> Packed 8 reqs - 1 times
>>>> Packed 10 reqs - 1 times
>>>> Packed 34 reqs - 1 times
>>>> stopped packing due to the following reasons:
>>>> 2 times: wrong data direction (meaning a READ was fetched and stopped
>>>> the
>>>> packing)
>>>> 1 times: flush or discard
>>>> 565 times: empty queue (meaning blk_fetch_request returned NULL)
>>>>> And I requested blktrace to confirm that this is indeed the
>>>>> behaviour.
>>>> The trace logs show that in case of no packing, there are maximum of
>>>> 3-4
>>>> requests issued before a read request, while with packing there are
>>>> also
>>>> cases of 6 and 7 requests dispatched before a read request.
>>>> I'm waiting for an approval for sharing the block trace logs.
>>>> Since this is a simple test to run you can collect the trace logs and
>>>> let
>>>> us know if you reach other conclusions.
>>> Thanks for the brief. I don't have the eMMC4.5 device with me yet, so
>>> I can't reproduce the result.
>> I sent the trace logs of both packing and non packing. Please let me
>> know
>> if you have additional questions after reviewing them.
>> The problem you describe is most likely
>>> applicable
>>> to any block device driver with a large queue depth ( any queue depth
>>> >1).
>>> I'll check to see what knobs in block affect the result.
>>> Speaking of it, what is the host controller you use to test this ?
>> The controller I use is msm_sdcc.
>>> I was wondering if host->max_seg_size is taken into account while
>>> packed
>>> command
>>> is in use. If not, shouldn't it be ? - it could act as a better
>>> throttle for "packing density".
>> The max segments (which is calculated from host->max_seg_size) is taking
>> into account when preparing the packed list (so that the whole packed
>> won't exceed the max number of segments).
>> I'm not sure I understand how host->max_seg_size can be used as a
>> throttle
>> for "packing density". Can you please explain?
> Ok - I overlooked that max_segments is indeed used to limit the number
> of requests
> that are packed.(And this corresponds to max_seg_size, which is what I
> intended)
> I should be getting my MMC4.5 test gear in a couple of days - I'll run
> it through
> on some hosts and can either provide more feedback or Ack this patch.
> Regards,
> Venkat.

Hi Venkat,

Do you have additional questions/comments?

Sent by consultant of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-08-27 21:01    [W:0.120 / U:1.656 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site