Message-id: <001e01cca2b2$3b449310$b1cdb930$%jun@samsung.com>
Date:	Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:46:06 +0900
From:	Seungwon Jeon <tgih.jun@...sung.com>
To:	merez@...eaurora.org, "'S, Venkatraman'" <svenkatr@...com>
Cc:	linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, 'Chris Ball' <cjb@...top.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
	kgene.kim@...sung.com, dh.han@...sung.com
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] mmc: core: Support packed command for eMMC4.5 device

Maya Erez wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Seungwon Jeon <tgih.jun@...sung.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Maya Erez wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 Maya Erez wrote:
> >>> > S, Venkatraman <svenkatr@...com> wrote:
> >>> >> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Seungwon Jeon <tgih.jun@...sung.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >> >> > +static u8 mmc_blk_chk_packable(struct mmc_queue *mq, struct
> >>> >> request *req)
> >>>
> >>> The function prepares the checkable list and not only checks if packing
> >>> is
> >>> possible, therefore I think its name should change to reflect its real
> >>> action
> >> I labored at naming. Isn't it proper? :)
> >> Do you have any recommendation?
> >> group_pack_req?
> >>
> >>>
> >>> >> >> > +       if (!(md->flags & MMC_BLK_CMD23) &&
> >>> >> >> > +                       !card->ext_csd.packed_event_en)
> >>> >> >> > +               goto no_packed;
> >>>
> >>> Having the condition with a && can lead to cases where CMD23 is not
> >>> supported and we send packed commands. Therfore the condition should be
> >>> changed to || or be splitted to 2 separate checks.
> >>> Also, according to the standard the generic error flag in
> >>> PACKED_COMMAND_STATUS is set in case of any error and having
> >>> PACKED_EVENT_EN is only optional. Therefore, I don't think that setting
> >>> the packed_event_en should be a mandatory condition for using packed
> >>> coammnds.
> >> ... cases where CMD23 is not supported and we send packed commands?
> >> Packed command must not be allowed in such a case.
> >> It works only with predefined mode which is essential fator.
> >> And spec doesn't mentioned PACKED_EVENT_EN must be set.
> >> So Packed command can be sent regardless PACKED_EVENT_EN,
> >> but it's not complete without reporting of error.
> >> Then host driver may suffer error recovery.
> >> Why packed command is used without error reporting?
> Let me better explain my comment:
> If the first condition (!(md->flags & MMC_BLK_CMD23) is 1 (meaning
> MMC_BLK_CMD23 flag is not set), then in case card->ext_csd.packed_event_en
> is 1 the second condition will be 0 and we won't "goto no_packed;". In
> this case, CMD_23 is not supported but we don't exit the function.
> If you want both conditions to be mandatory you need to use here an ||.
Thank you for clearing comment.
This condition will be fixed.

> >>
> >>>
> >>> >> >> > +       if (mmc_req_rel_wr(cur) &&
> >>> >> >> > +                       (md->flags & MMC_BLK_REL_WR) &&
> >>> >> >> > +                       !en_rel_wr) {
> >>> >> >> > +               goto no_packed;
> >>> >> >> > +       }
> >>>
> >>> Can you please explain this condition and its purpose?
> >>>
> >> In the case where reliable write is request but enhanced reliable write
> >> is not supported, write access must be partial according to
> >> reliable write sector count. Because even a single request can be split,
> >> packed command is not allowed in this case.
> >>
> >>> >> >> > +               phys_segments +=  next->nr_phys_segments;
> >>> >> >> > +               if (phys_segments > max_phys_segs) {
> >>> >> >> > +                       blk_requeue_request(q, next);
> >>> >> >> > +                       break;
> >>> >> >> > +               }
> >>> >> >> I mentioned this before - if the next request is not packable and
> >>> >> requeued,
> >>> >> >> blk_fetch_request will retrieve it again and this while loop will
> >>> never terminate.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> > If next request is not packable, it is requeued and 'break'
> >>> terminates
> >>> >> this loop.
> >>> >> > So it not infinite.
> >>> >> Right !! But that doesn't help finding the commands that are
> >>> packable.
> >>> Ideally, you'd need to pack all neighbouring requests into one packed
> >>> command.
> >>> >> The way CFQ works, it is not necessary that the fetch would return
> >>> all
> >>> outstanding
> >>> >> requests that are packable (unless you invoke a forced dispatch) It
> >>> would be good to see some numbers on the number of pack hits /
> >>> misses
> >>> >> that
> >>> >> you would encounter with this logic, on a typical usecase.
> >>> > Is it considered only for CFQ scheduler? How about other I/O
> >>> scheduler?
> >>> If all requests are drained from scheduler queue forcedly,
> >>> > the number of candidate to be packed can be increased.
> >>> > However we may lose the unique CFQ's strength and MMC D/D may take
> >>> the
> >>> CFQ's duty.
> >>> > Basically, this patch accommodates the origin order requests from I/O
> >>> scheduler.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> In order to better utilize the packed commands feature and achieve the
> >>> best performance improvements I think that the command packing should
> >>> be
> >>> done in the block layer, according to the scheduler policy.
> >>> That is, the scheduler should be aware of the capability of the device
> >>> to
> >>> receive a request list and its constrains (such as maximum number of
> >>> requests, max number of sectors etc) and use this information as a
> >>>  factor
> >>> to its algorithm.
> >>> This way you keep the decision making in the hands of the scheduler
> >>> while
> >>> the MMC layer will only have to send this list as a packed command.
> >>>
> >> Yes, it would be another interesting approach.
> >> Command packing you mentioned means gathering request among same
> >> direction(read/write)?
> >> Currently I/O scheduler may know device constrains which MMC driver
> >> informs
> >> with the exception of order information for packed command.
> >> But I think the dependency of I/O scheduler may be able to come up.
> >> How can MMC layer treat packed command with I/O scheduler which doesn't
> >> support this?
> >
> > The very act of packing presumes some sorting and re-ordering at the
> > I/O scheduler level.
> > When no such sorting is done (ex. noop), MMC should resort to
> > non-packed execution, respecting the system configuration choice.
> >
> > Looking deeper into this, I think a better approach would be to set
> > the prep_rq_fn of the request_queue, with a custom mmc function that
> > decides if the requests are packable or not, and return a
> > BLKPREP_DEFER for those that can't be packed.
> >
> >>
> >>> >> >> > +       if (rqc)
> >>> >> >> > +               reqs = mmc_blk_chk_packable(mq, rqc);
> >>>
> >>> It would be best to keep all the calls to blk_fetch_request in the same
> >>> location. Therefore, I suggest to move the call to mmc_blk_chk_packable
> >>> to
> >>> mmc/card/queue.c after the first request is fetched.
> >>
> >> At the first time, I considered that way.
> >> I'll do more, if possible.
I considered more.
I think that mmc_blk_chk_packable would rather be called only for r/w type
than all request type(e.g. discard, flush).

> >>>
> >>> >> >> >  cmd_abort:
> >>> >> >> > -       spin_lock_irq(&md->lock);
> >>> >> >> > -       while (ret)
> >>> >> >> > -               ret = __blk_end_request(req, -EIO,
> >>> >> blk_rq_cur_bytes(req));
> >>> >> >> > -       spin_unlock_irq(&md->lock);
> >>> >> >> > +       if (mq_rq->packed_cmd != MMC_PACKED_NONE) {
> >>>
> >>> This should be the case for MMC_PACKED_NONE.
> >> Right, I missed it.
> >>>
> >>> >> >> > +               spin_lock_irq(&md->lock);
> >>> >> >> > +               while (ret)
> >>> >> >> > +                       ret = __blk_end_request(req, -EIO,
> >>> >> blk_rq_cur_bytes(req));
> >>>
> >>> Do we need the while or should it be an if? In other cases where
> >>> __blk_end_request is called there is no such while.
> >> This part is not only the new but also origin code which is moved in
> >> this patch.
> >> Maybe...,'If' case is used  for a whole of remained bytes and
> >> 'while' case is used for partial report of remained bytes.
> >>
> >> Thank you for review.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Seugwon Jeon.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Maya Erez
> >>> Consultant for Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
> >>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
> >>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> >>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >>
> >>
> >
> Thanks,
> Maya Erez
> Consultant for Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
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