linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mmc: Added quirks for Ricoh 1180:e823 lower base clock frequency

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1107121123140.1767@lazy>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:09:10 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Manoj Iyer <manoj.iyer@...onical.com>
To:	Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>
cc:	Manoj Iyer <manoj.iyer@...onical.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org,
	matsumur@....ricoh.co.jp, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: Added quirks for Ricoh 1180:e823 lower base clock
 frequency


Chris,

btw only the 1st write was slower, subsequent writes looks ok.

  === before ==        === after ==
real    0m0.480s vs real    0m0.757s
real    0m0.476s vs real    0m0.488s
real    0m0.484s vs real    0m0.484s
real    0m0.480s vs real    0m0.486s

I have attached the output of flashbench and the time test to

http://launchpad.net/bugs/773524

Might be easier for side by side comparison. But I have it pasted here as 
well.

=== FLASHBENCH ================
======== BEFORE PATCH =========
== Guess erase block and page sizes ==
u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ sudo ./flashbench -a /dev/mmcblk0 
--blocksize=1024
align 536870912 pre 1.49ms      on 3.42ms       post 3.06ms     diff 
1.15ms
align 268435456 pre 1.51ms      on 3.7ms        post 3.09ms     diff 1.4ms
align 134217728 pre 2.19ms      on 3.64ms       post 3.05ms     diff 
1.03ms
align 67108864  pre 1.49ms      on 3.53ms       post 3.1ms      diff 
1.23ms
align 33554432  pre 2.45ms      on 3.79ms       post 3.12ms     diff 999µs
align 16777216  pre 1.46ms      on 3.52ms       post 3.1ms      diff 
1.24ms
align 8388608   pre 1.46ms      on 3.52ms       post 3.1ms      diff 
1.24ms
align 4194304   pre 1.46ms      on 3.52ms       post 3.1ms      diff 
1.24ms
align 2097152   pre 1.46ms      on 3.52ms       post 3.1ms      diff 
1.24ms
align 1048576   pre 2.02ms      on 3.79ms       post 3.12ms     diff 
1.22ms
align 524288    pre 2.22ms      on 2.39ms       post 2.41ms     diff 
77.6µs
align 262144    pre 2.43ms      on 2.61ms       post 2.61ms     diff 
95.8µs
align 131072    pre 2.58ms      on 2.77ms       post 2.73ms     diff 111µs
align 65536     pre 2.65ms      on 2.87ms       post 2.74ms     diff 169µs
align 32768     pre 2.7ms       on 2.88ms       post 2.84ms     diff 107µs
align 16384     pre 2.73ms      on 2.91ms       post 2.87ms     diff 111µs
align 8192      pre 2.74ms      on 2.92ms       post 2.88ms     diff 109µs
align 4096      pre 2.9ms       on 2.86ms       post 2.83ms     diff 
-7395ns
align 2048      pre 2.88ms      on 2.87ms       post 2.86ms     diff 
2.28µs
u@u:~/flash/flashbench$

== Finding the number of open erase blocks ==
u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ sudo ./flashbench -O --erasesize=$[4 * 1024 * 
1024] --blocksize=$[256 * 1024] /dev/mmcblk0  --open-au-nr=2
4MiB    6.36M/s
2MiB    6.24M/s
1MiB    6.17M/s
512KiB  6.19M/s
256KiB  6.22M/s
u@u:~/flash/flashbench$

u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ sudo ./flashbench -O --erasesize=$[4 * 1024 * 
1024] --blocksize=$[256 * 1024] /dev/mmcblk0  --open-au-nr=3
4MiB    6.25M/s
2MiB    6.25M/s
1MiB    6.24M/s
512KiB  2.53M/s
256KiB  1.14M/s
u@u:~/flash/flashbench$


====== AFTER PATCH ========
== Guess erase block and page sizes ==
u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ sudo ./flashbench -a /dev/mmcblk0 --blocksize=1024
[sudo] password for u:
align 536870912 pre 1.56ms      on 3.53ms       post 3.14ms     diff 
1.18ms
align 268435456 pre 1.54ms      on 3.52ms       post 3.12ms     diff 
1.19ms
align 134217728 pre 1.5ms       on 3.5ms        post 3.1ms      diff 1.2ms
align 67108864  pre 1.56ms      on 3.68ms       post 3.2ms      diff 1.3ms
align 33554432  pre 1.55ms      on 3.6ms        post 3.15ms     diff 
1.25ms
align 16777216  pre 1.57ms      on 3.62ms       post 3.18ms     diff 
1.25ms
align 8388608   pre 1.57ms      on 3.61ms       post 3.16ms     diff 
1.24ms
align 4194304   pre 1.55ms      on 3.6ms        post 3.16ms     diff 
1.24ms
align 2097152   pre 1.56ms      on 3.61ms       post 3.22ms     diff 
1.22ms
align 1048576   pre 1.57ms      on 3.62ms       post 3.16ms     diff 
1.25ms
align 524288    pre 2.23ms      on 2.42ms       post 2.44ms     diff 81µs
align 262144    pre 2.49ms      on 2.67ms       post 2.61ms     diff 115µs
align 131072    pre 2.68ms      on 2.87ms       post 2.8ms      diff 129µs
align 65536     pre 2.78ms      on 2.98ms       post 2.85ms     diff 172µs
align 32768     pre 2.8ms       on 2.99ms       post 2.94ms     diff 117µs
align 16384     pre 2.81ms      on 2.99ms       post 2.95ms     diff 117µs
align 8192      pre 2.86ms      on 3ms  post 3.01ms     diff 68.6µs
align 4096      pre 2.96ms      on 2.93ms       post 2.93ms     diff 
-14207n
align 2048      pre 2.98ms      on 3ms  post 2.98ms     diff 20.1µs
u@u:~/flash/flashbench$

== Finding the number of open erase blocks ==
u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ sudo ./flashbench -O --erasesize=$[4 * 1024 * 
1024]         --blocksize=$[256 * 1024] /dev/mmcblk0  --open-au-nr=2
[sudo] password for u:
4MiB    5.49M/s
2MiB    6.22M/s
1MiB    6.22M/s
512KiB  6.21M/s
256KiB  6.21M/s
u@u:~/flash/flashbench$

u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ sudo ./flashbench -O --erasesize=$[4 * 1024 * 
1024] --blocksize=$[256 * 1024] /dev/mmcblk0  --open-au-nr=3
[sudo] password for u:
4MiB    5.31M/s
2MiB    6.16M/s
1MiB    6.2M/s
512KiB  2.53M/s
256KiB  1.14M/s
u@u:~/flash/flashbench$



On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Chris Ball wrote:

> Hi Manoj,
>
> On Tue, Jul 12 2011, Manoj Iyer wrote:
>> Test System: ThinkPad X220 Tablet, using Sandisk 2GB Class 2 SD, I did
>> not see any considerable change in read/write times. Also, tested a
>> Transcend MMCPlus 2GB card, before the patch was applied it would not
>> mount the card, and would cause IO errors on read/write, but after the
>> patch it mounts and works correctly.
>> [..]
>> ============ BEFORE THE PATCH ===============
>> Sandisk 2GB Class2 SD
>> =============================================
>> === WRITE ===
>> u@u:~$ ls -lh test.file
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 u u 10M 2011-07-12 10:19 test.file
>> u@u:~$ time cp test.file /media/E0FD-1813/copyto
>>
>> real    0m0.480s
>> user    0m0.000s
>> sys     0m0.024s
>> [..]
>> ============ AFTER THE PATCH =============
>> Sandisk 2GB Class2 SD
>> ==========================================
>>
>> === WRITE ===
>> u@u:~$ time cp ./test.file /media/E0FD-1813/copyto1
>>
>> real    0m0.757s
>> user    0m0.000s
>> sys     0m0.044s
>
> This suggests that there *was* a considerable difference in write speed, no?
>
> It might be helpful to use Arnd's flashbench tool¹ for further benchmarking,
> since it does the right thing with using direct I/O access without caches.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Chris.
>
> ¹: http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/arnd/flashbench.git
> -- 
> Chris Ball   <cjb@...top.org>   <http://printf.net/>
> One Laptop Per Child
>
>

--
====================
Manoj Iyer
Ubuntu/Canonical
Hardware Enablement
====================