Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/6] esp_scsi: Optimize PIO loops | From | Michael Schmitz <> | Date | Sat, 13 Oct 2018 17:18:59 +1300 |
| |
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
| |