linux-kernel - Re: remove block layer bounce buffering for MMC

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAK8P3a15eGQ+gxxZxGVxsJXpkYSQPOZ5UmRNr7biS--Ye+Unsg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Jan 2019 14:54:18 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
        Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>,
        Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
        "linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-omap <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
        "list@....net:IOMMU DRIVERS <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, Joerg
        Roedel <joro@...tes.org>," <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: remove block layer bounce buffering for MMC

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 2:51 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 11:25 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 11:27 AM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > +Linus Walleij (recently made a cleanup of the mmc bounce buffering code).
>
> Nah it's not THAT bounce buffer.
>
> > Linus probably knows more here, but I have a vague recollection of
> > the MMC bounce buffer code being needed mostly for performance
> > reasons: when the scatterlist is discontiguous, that can result in
> > a request being split up into separate MMC commands, which due
> > to the lack of queued commands combined with the need for
> > garbage collection on sub-page writes results in a huge slowdown
> > compared to having larger bounce buffers all the time.
> >
> > We had discussed finding a different way to do this (separate
> > from the bounce buffering), but I don't know if that ever happened,
> > or if this is even the code that you are changing here.
>
> Nope not the same code.
>
> The term "bounce buffer" is sadly used as ambigously as
> __underscores in front of function names.
>
> That other "bounce buffer" was first deleted and then
> reimplemented as a local hack in the SDHCI driver core
> after it caused performance regressions on the i.MX and
> some laptops, see commit:
>
> commit bd9b902798ab14d19ca116b10bde581ddff8f905
> mmc: sdhci: Implement an SDHCI-specific bounce buffer
>
> That should be orthogonal to Christoph's changes in this
> patch series.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Please ignore my comments then.

    Arnd