lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 6/6] esp_scsi: Optimize PIO loops
From
Date
Hi Finn,

Am 13.10.2018 um 17:09 schrieb Finn Thain:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2018, Michael Schmitz wrote:
>
>> Hi Finn,
>>
>> Am 13.10.2018 um 13:51 schrieb Finn Thain:
>>> Avoid function calls in the inner PIO loops. On a Centris 660av this
>>> improves throughput for sequential read transfers by about 40% and
>>> sequential write by about 10%.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately it is not possible to have method calls like esp_write8()
>>> placed inline so this is always going to be slow (even with LTO).
>>>
>>> Tested-by: Stan Johnson <userm57@yahoo.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/scsi/esp_scsi.c | 14 +++++++-------
>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/esp_scsi.c b/drivers/scsi/esp_scsi.c
>>> index 646701fc22a4..9f0e68cd0e99 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/esp_scsi.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/esp_scsi.c
>>> @@ -2788,7 +2788,7 @@ static inline unsigned int esp_wait_for_fifo(struct
>>> esp *esp)
>>> if (fbytes)
>>> return fbytes;
>>>
>>> - udelay(2);
>>> + udelay(1);
>>> } while (--i);
>>>
>>> pr_err("FIFO is empty (sreg %02x)\n", esp_read8(ESP_STATUS));
>>> @@ -2804,7 +2804,7 @@ static inline int esp_wait_for_intr(struct esp *esp)
>>> if (esp->sreg & ESP_STAT_INTR)
>>> return 0;
>>>
>>> - udelay(2);
>>> + udelay(1);
>>> } while (--i);
>>>
>>> pr_err("IRQ timeout (sreg %02x)\n", esp->sreg);
>>> @@ -2831,7 +2831,7 @@ void esp_send_pio_cmd(struct esp *esp, u32 addr, u32
>>> esp_count,
>>> if (!esp_wait_for_fifo(esp))
>>> break;
>>>
>>> - *dst++ = esp_read8(ESP_FDATA);
>>> + *dst++ = readb(esp->fifo_reg);
>>> --esp_count;
>>>
>>> if (!esp_count)
>>> @@ -2852,15 +2852,15 @@ void esp_send_pio_cmd(struct esp *esp, u32 addr, u32
>>> esp_count,
>>> }
>>>
>>> if (phase == ESP_MIP)
>>> - scsi_esp_cmd(esp, ESP_CMD_MOK);
>>> + esp_write8(ESP_CMD_MOK, ESP_CMD);
>>
>> You're no longer logging this command with this patch. (That'll be the reason
>> for the speedup you saw ...)
>>
>>>
>>> - scsi_esp_cmd(esp, ESP_CMD_TI);
>>> + esp_write8(ESP_CMD_TI, ESP_CMD);
>>
>> Same here..
>>
>>> }
>>> } else {
>>> unsigned int n = ESP_FIFO_SIZE;
>>> u8 *src = (u8 *)addr;
>>>
>>> - scsi_esp_cmd(esp, ESP_CMD_FLUSH);
>>> + esp_write8(ESP_CMD_FLUSH, ESP_CMD);
>>
>> here..
>>
>>>
>>> if (n > esp_count)
>>> n = esp_count;
>>> @@ -2894,7 +2894,7 @@ void esp_send_pio_cmd(struct esp *esp, u32 addr, u32
>>> esp_count,
>>> src += n;
>>> esp_count -= n;
>>>
>>> - scsi_esp_cmd(esp, ESP_CMD_TI);
>>> + esp_write8(ESP_CMD_TI, ESP_CMD);
>>
>> and here.
>>
>
> Yes, it's deliberate.

I'm sure it was... and I wasn't objecting to that.

>> The burst of ESP_CMD_TI's in the log was quite useful to spot what went
>> wrong during PIO.
>
> I don't think it's as useful as you seem to think. Compare
> mac_esp_send_pdma_cmd().
>
>> Maybe mention in the changelog that commands during PIO are no longer
>> logged? Or introduce a new ESP_EVENT_PIO and log that at the start of
>> PIO?
>>
>
> Yes, and I did leave a scsi_esp_cmd(esp, cmd) call at the start of PIO.

Which I missed from just looking at the patch, sorry.

> That should be sufficient, right?

It would indeed. Thanks for clarifying.

Cheers,

Michael

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-13 06:19    [W:0.065 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site