[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110705162705.c3081299.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 16:27:05 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
To: Per Forlin <per.forlin@...aro.org>
Cc: linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Venkatraman S <svenkatr@...com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Sourav Poddar <sourav.poddar@...com>,
Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mmc: documentation of mmc non-blocking request usage
and design.
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 23:35:32 +0200 Per Forlin wrote:
> +MMC block driver
> +================
> +
> +The issue_rw_rq() in the MMC block driver is made non-blocking.
> +The increase in throughput is proportional to the time it takes to
> +prepare (major part of preparations are dma_map_sg and dma_unmap_sg)
> +a request and how fast the memory is. The faster the MMC/SD is
> +the more significant the prepare request time becomes. Roughly the expected
> +performance gain is 5% for large writes and 10% on large reads on a L2 cache
> +platform. In power save mode, when clocks run on a lower frequency, the DMA
> +preparation may cost even more. As long as these slower preparations are run
> +in parallel with the transfer performance wont be affected.
won't
Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
thanks.
---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
--
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