| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAFEEs1=yA3NO23amyc0X5-4NUUDJp-xAMw6OwdmTQeWdAWc-Ew@mail.gmail.com> 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