lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 0/5] Add MMC software queue support
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 09:41, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ulf,
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:00 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 13:51, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > Now the MMC read/write stack will always wait for previous request is
> > > completed by mmc_blk_rw_wait(), before sending a new request to hardware,
> > > or queue a work to complete request, that will bring context switching
> > > overhead, especially for high I/O per second rates, to affect the IO
> > > performance.
> >
> > In the regular request path (non CQE), we call mmc_blk_card_busy() to
> > complete a request. For write I/O, this leads to calling
> > card_busy_detect(), which starts to poll the card by sending a CMD13.
> >
> > At least one CMD13 will be sent to the card, before we exit the
> > polling loop and a new I/O request can get submitted. However, in many
> > cases, depending on the controller/host/card/request-size, my best
> > guess is that *one* CMD13 might not be sufficient. At least, that is
> > what I have observed on those platforms I recently have been working
> > on.
> >
> > That said, I am wondering if you have done some measurement/profiling
> > on this particular behaviour for your controller/driver? For example,
> > how many CMD13 gets sent for random small writes during polling?
>
> Ah, I had not checked how many CMD13 for random small writes before.
> And I did a quick testing today, I found only 1 CMD13 gets sent for
> random writes on my platform.

Thanks for sharing the result, very interesting!

Would you mind running a "dd write operation", to test large
consecutive writes as those should cause longer busy times. Just to
make sure the HW busy detection really works as expected.

For example:
dd of=/dev/mmcblk[n] if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=512 conv=fsync

>
>
> > Why am I asking this? Because, unless I am mistaken, when using the
> > new hsq path that you introduce in $subject series, based on the cqe
> > ops, then mmc_blk_card_busy() is not being called at all. In other
> > words, you rely on HW busy detection from the controller/driver,
> > rather than polling with CMD13. Is that correct?
>
> Right. I think so.

A couple of follow up questions then.

Normally, the mmc core adds the MMC_RSP_BUSY (part of MMC_RSP_R1B)
response flag, for those commands having busy signaling on DAT0, like
CMD6 for example. After the command has been sent, the core checks
whether the host supports HW busy signaling, via the
MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY flag. If so the polling loop to detect when
the card stops signaling busy, is skipped by the core. See
__mmc_switch() and mmc_poll_for_busy(), for example.

This makes me wonder, why doesn't your driver set the
MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY, as it seems to support HW busy signaling?

Moreover, it also seems like your driver can support
MMC_CAP_DONE_COMPLETE. Or at least the part that requires HW busy
detection for I/O write operations. I guess we also need your series,
"[PATCH 0/3] Introduce the request_atomic() for the host" as to
support it. What do you think, would it be possible to test this at
your side?

Note that, I haven't played with MMC_CAP_DONE_COMPLETE so far, but it
was invented to allow optimization for these kind of situations.

Now, don't get me wrong, I still think we should move forward with
@subject series. I just want to make sure we don't have several
methods to implement the same thing. So perhaps, MMC_CAP_DONE_COMPLETE
and the corresponding code should be removed, in favor of the more
generic hsq interface?

>
> > This seems like an additional reason to why you achieve significant
> > improvements for the random write case. Don't you think?
>
> Yes, agree wtih you.
>
> > >
> > > Thus this patch set will introduce the MMC software command queue support
> > > based on command queue engine's interfaces, and set the queue depth as 64
> > > to allow more requests can be be prepared, merged and inserted into IO
> > > scheduler, but we only allow 2 requests in flight, that is enough to let
> > > the irq handler always trigger the next request without a context switch,
> > > as well as avoiding a long latency.
> > >
> > > Moreover we can expand the MMC software queue interface to support
> > > MMC packed request or packed command instead of adding new interfaces,
> > > according to previosus discussion.
> > >
> > > Below are some comparison data with fio tool. The fio command I used
> > > is like below with changing the '--rw' parameter and enabling the direct
> > > IO flag to measure the actual hardware transfer speed in 4K block size.
> > >
> > > ./fio --filename=/dev/mmcblk0p30 --direct=1 --iodepth=20 --rw=read --bs=4K --size=1G --group_reporting --numjobs=20 --name=test_read
> > >
> > > My eMMC card working at HS400 Enhanced strobe mode:
> > > [ 2.229856] mmc0: new HS400 Enhanced strobe MMC card at address 0001
> > > [ 2.237566] mmcblk0: mmc0:0001 HBG4a2 29.1 GiB
> > > [ 2.242621] mmcblk0boot0: mmc0:0001 HBG4a2 partition 1 4.00 MiB
> > > [ 2.249110] mmcblk0boot1: mmc0:0001 HBG4a2 partition 2 4.00 MiB
> > > [ 2.255307] mmcblk0rpmb: mmc0:0001 HBG4a2 partition 3 4.00 MiB, chardev (248:0)
> > >
> > > 1. Without MMC software queue
> > > I tested 5 times for each case and output a average speed.
> > >
> > > 1) Sequential read:
> > > Speed: 59.4MiB/s, 63.4MiB/s, 57.5MiB/s, 57.2MiB/s, 60.8MiB/s
> > > Average speed: 59.66MiB/s
> > >
> > > 2) Random read:
> > > Speed: 26.9MiB/s, 26.9MiB/s, 27.1MiB/s, 27.1MiB/s, 27.2MiB/s
> > > Average speed: 27.04MiB/s
> > >
> > > 3) Sequential write:
> > > Speed: 71.6MiB/s, 72.5MiB/s, 72.2MiB/s, 64.6MiB/s, 67.5MiB/s
> > > Average speed: 69.68MiB/s
> > >
> > > 4) Random write:
> > > Speed: 36.3MiB/s, 35.4MiB/s, 38.6MiB/s, 34MiB/s, 35.5MiB/s
> > > Average speed: 35.96MiB/s
> > >
> > > 2. With MMC software queue
> > > I tested 5 times for each case and output a average speed.
> > >
> > > 1) Sequential read:
> > > Speed: 59.2MiB/s, 60.4MiB/s, 63.6MiB/s, 60.3MiB/s, 59.9MiB/s
> > > Average speed: 60.68MiB/s
> > >
> > > 2) Random read:
> > > Speed: 31.3MiB/s, 31.4MiB/s, 31.5MiB/s, 31.3MiB/s, 31.3MiB/s
> > > Average speed: 31.36MiB/s
> > >
> > > 3) Sequential write:
> > > Speed: 71MiB/s, 71.8MiB/s, 72.3MiB/s, 72.2MiB/s, 71MiB/s
> > > Average speed: 71.66MiB/s
> > >
> > > 4) Random write:
> > > Speed: 68.9MiB/s, 68.7MiB/s, 68.8MiB/s, 68.6MiB/s, 68.8MiB/s
> > > Average speed: 68.76MiB/s
> > >
> > > Form above data, we can see the MMC software queue can help to improve some
> > > performance obviously for random read and write, though no obvious improvement
> > > for sequential read and write.
> > >
> > > Any comments are welcome. Thanks a lot.
> > >
> > > Changes from v7:
> > > - Add reviewed tag from Arnd.
> > > - Use the 'hsq' acronym for varibles and functions in the core layer.
> > > - Check the 'card->ext_csd.cmdq_en' in cqhci.c to make sure the CQE
> > > can work normally.
> > > - Add a new patch to enable the host software queue for the SD card.
> > > - Use the default MMC queue depth for host software queue.
> >
> > It would be nice to also have some measurements for an SD card, now
> > that the series supports this. Is that possible for you test as well?
>
> Yes, but my SD card works at high speed mode, and shows a low speed in
> 4k block size.
> [ 2.941965] mmc0: new high speed SDHC card at address b368
> [ 2.948325] mmcblk0: mmc0:b368 SD08G 7.42 GiB
> [ 2.956554] mmcblk0: p1
>
> And I did not see any obvious improvement or recession for my SD card
> in 4k block size from below data, I think the most of the time is
> spent in hardware. (But when I enabled the packed request based on
> hsq, I can see some obvious improvement.)
> Without hsq:
> read: bw=4347KiB/s
> randread: bw=3040KiB/s
> write: bw=1361KiB/s
> randwrite: bw=692KiB/s
>
> With hsq:
> read: bw=4246KiB/s
> randread: bw=29950KiB/s
> write: bw=1417KiB/s
> randwrite: bw=697KiB/s

Thanks for testing and sharing!

Did you use "[PATCH 0/3] Introduce the request_atomic() for the host"
as well? In there, it seems like you are disabling the hsq option for
removable cards, or did I get that wrong? Does it matter?

Kind regards
Uffe

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-10 14:27    [W:0.126 / U:3.932 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site