[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100315030338.GR6491@shareable.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:03:38 +0000
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
To: Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"Kreuzer, Michael (NSN - DE/Ulm)" <michael.kreuzer@....com>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch] fix MTD CFI/LPDDR flash driver huge latency bug
Stefani Seibold wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 12.03.2010, 23:38 +0000 schrieb Jamie Lokier:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:48:57 +0100
> > > Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net> wrote:
> > >
>
>
> > > > The patch change all the use of spin_lock operations for xxxx->mutex
> > > > into mutex operations, which is exact what the name says and means.
> >
> > It would be even better if it also split the critical sections into
> > smaller ones with cond_resched() between, so that non-preemptible
> > kernels benefit too.
>
> The problem is the memcpy operation which is very slow. A cond_resched
> wouldn't help, since the cpu bus is blocked during the transfer of the
> word.
I mean split the memcpy into multiple smaller memcpys, so that the
total time in each memcpy is limited to something reasonable.
The check in cond_resched() is fast, especially once cached. memcpy
speed depends a lot on the attached flash and how everything's
configured, varying from 2.5MB/s up to hundreds of MB/s. So how about
doing cond_resched() every 256 bytes?
-- Jamie
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists