[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1107181546100.1677@lazy>
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