| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:47:33 -0500 (CDT) From: Manoj Iyer <manoj.iyer@...onical.com> To: Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org> cc: Manoj Iyer <manoj.iyer@...onical.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, 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, Right, without the patch I get.. [ 52.526665] mmc0: new SDHC card at address e624 [ 52.571228] mmcblk0: mmc0:e624 SD16G 14.8 GiB [ 52.591071] mmcblk0: retrying using single block read [ 52.593105] mmcblk0: error -84 transferring data, sector 0, nr 8, card status 0x900 [ 52.593109] end_request: I/O error, dev mmcblk0, sector 0 [ 52.594594] mmcblk0: error -84 transferring data, sector 1, nr 7, card status 0x900 [ 52.594604] end_request: I/O error, dev mmcblk0, sector 1 [ 52.602893] quiet_error: 24 callbacks suppressed [ 52.602902] Buffer I/O error on device mmcblk0, logical block 0 [ 52.605349] ldm_validate_partition_table(): Disk read failed. [ 52.605384] Dev mmcblk0: unable to read RDB block 0 [ 52.607729] mmcblk0: unable to read partition table u@u:~$ So, I cannot generate any comparison data with this SD card. On Mon, 18 Jul 2011, Chris Ball wrote: > Hi Manoj, > > On Mon, Jul 18 2011, Manoj Iyer wrote: >> Here are the results with SanDisk SDSDXP1-016G-A75 16GB Extreme Pro >> SDHC Memory Card. >> >> u@u:~/flashbench$ sudo ./flashbench -a /dev/mmcblk0p1 >> [sudo] password for u: >> align 4294967296 pre 1.16ms on 1.15ms post 1.15ms >> diff -2024ns >> align 2147483648 pre 1.2ms on 1.2ms post 1.2ms >> diff 522ns >> align 1073741824 pre 1.21ms on 1.2ms post 1.2ms >> diff 570ns >> align 536870912 pre 1.2ms on 1.2ms post 1.2ms diff 662ns >> align 268435456 pre 1.2ms on 1.2ms post 1.2ms diff 404ns >> align 134217728 pre 1.2ms on 1.2ms post 1.2ms diff >> -1692ns >> align 67108864 pre 1.15ms on 1.16ms post 1.16ms diff >> 1.37µs >> align 33554432 pre 1.18ms on 1.19ms post 1.15ms diff >> 31.3µs >> align 16777216 pre 1.17ms on 1.19ms post 1.15ms diff >> 31.5µs >> align 8388608 pre 1.17ms on 1.21ms post 1.18ms diff >> 32.9µs >> align 4194304 pre 1.37ms on 1.55ms post 1.17ms diff 274µs >> align 2097152 pre 1.37ms on 1.37ms post 1.39ms diff >> -7992ns >> align 1048576 pre 1.33ms on 1.33ms post 1.34ms diff >> -7793ns >> align 524288 pre 1.33ms on 1.33ms post 1.34ms diff >> -6641ns >> align 262144 pre 1.34ms on 1.38ms post 1.35ms diff >> 33.8µs >> align 131072 pre 1.35ms on 1.37ms post 1.34ms diff >> 27.2µs >> align 65536 pre 1.34ms on 1.37ms post 1.34ms diff >> 31.7µs >> align 32768 pre 1.33ms on 1.37ms post 1.34ms diff >> 32.5µs >> >> u@u:~/flashbench$ sudo ./flashbench -O --erasesize=$[4 * 1024 * 1024] >> --blocksize=$[256 * 1024] /dev/mmcblk0p1 --open-au-nr=2 >> 4MiB 23.2M/s >> 2MiB 23.6M/s >> 1MiB 23.5M/s >> 512KiB 23.2M/s >> 256KiB 23.2M/s >> u@u:~/flashbench$ > > I don't understand whether these measurements are before or after your > patch -- we're looking to see what the *difference* in performance is > with the patch applied, right? > > Thanks, > > - Chris. > -- > Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org> <http://printf.net/> > One Laptop Per Child > > -- ==================== Manoj Iyer Ubuntu/Canonical Hardware Enablement ====================
Powered by blists - more mailing lists