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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 22 Oct 2012 00:22:46 +0200
From:	Per Forlin <per.lkml@...il.com>
To:	Konstantin Dorfman <kdorfman@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: fix async request mechanism for sequential read scenarios

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Konstantin Dorfman
<kdorfman@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 17:19:01 +0200, Per Forlin <per.lkml@...il.com>
> wrote:
> Hello Per,
>
>>I would like to start with some basic comments.
>>
>>1. Is this read sequential issue specific to MMC?
>>2. Or is it common with all other block-drivers that gets data from
>>the block layer (SCSI/SATA etc) ?
>>If (#2) can the issue be addressed inside the block layer instead?
>>
>>BR
>>Per
> This issue specific to MMC, others block drivers probably not using
> MMC mechanism for async request (or have more kernel threads for
> processing incoming blk requests).
> I think, since MMC actively fetches requests from block layer queue,
> the solution has nothing to do with block layer context.
>
>>
>>On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Konstantin Dorfman
>><kdorfman@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>> The main assumption of the async request design is that the file
>>> system adds block requests to the block device queue asynchronously
>>> without waiting for completion (see the Rationale section of
>>> https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/Kernel/Specs
>>> /StoragePerfMMC-async-req).
>>>
>>> We found out that in case of sequential read operations this is not
>>> the case, due to the read ahead mechanism.
>>Would it be possible to improve this mechanism to achieve the same result?
>>Allow an outstanding read ahead request on top of the current ongoing one.
>>
>
> I need to look on this mechanism,  but from first glance such
> behaviour may be result of libc/vfs/fs decisions and too complex
> comparing to the patch we are talking about.
One observation I have made is that if setting the mmc_req_size to
half READ_AHEAD changes the way block layer adds request to the MMC
queue.

Extract from https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/Kernel/Specs/StoragePerfMMC-async-req#Unresolved_issues
--------------------------------
Forcing mmc host driver to set mmc_req_size 64k results in this behaviour.

dd if=/dev/mmcblk0 of=/dev/null bs=4k count=256
 [mmc_queue_thread] req d955f9b0 blocks 32
 [mmc_queue_thread] req   (null) blocks 0
 [mmc_queue_thread] req   (null) blocks 0
 [mmc_queue_thread] req d955f9b0 blocks 64
 [mmc_queue_thread] req   (null) blocks 0
 [mmc_queue_thread] req d955f8d8 blocks 128
 [mmc_queue_thread] req   (null) blocks 0
 [mmc_queue_thread] req d955f9b0 blocks 128
 [mmc_queue_thread] req d955f800 blocks 128
 [mmc_queue_thread] req d955f8d8 blocks 128
 [mmc_queue_thread] req d955fec0 blocks 128
 [mmc_queue_thread] req d955f800 blocks 128
 [mmc_queue_thread] req d955f9b0 blocks 128
 [mmc_queue_thread] req d967cd30 blocks 128
--------------------------------

This shows that the block layer can add request in a more asynchronous
manner. I have not investigate that mechanism enough to say what can
be done.
Do you have an explanation to why the block layer behaves like this?

BR
Per

>
>
> --
> Konstantin Dorfman,
> QUALCOMM ISRAEL, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
> of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
>
--
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