[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <40ef3da0-56f4-3c78-f875-a750afaf2ec5@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 18:37:21 +0200
From: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...ia.com>
To: Luis Alberto Herrera <luisalberto@...gle.com>,
tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com
Cc: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@...nel.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: revert "spi-nor: intel: provide a range for
poll_timout"
Hello Luis,
thank you for the patch!
On 11/06/2020 00:46, Luis Alberto Herrera wrote:
> This change reverts aba3a882a178: "mtd: spi-nor: intel: provide a range
> for poll_timout". That change introduces a performance regression when
> reading sequentially from flash. Logging calls to intel_spi_read without
> this change we get:
>
> Start MTD read
> [ 20.045527] intel_spi_read(from=1800000, len=400000)
> [ 20.045527] intel_spi_read(from=1800000, len=400000)
> [ 282.199274] intel_spi_read(from=1c00000, len=400000)
> [ 282.199274] intel_spi_read(from=1c00000, len=400000)
> [ 544.351528] intel_spi_read(from=2000000, len=400000)
> [ 544.351528] intel_spi_read(from=2000000, len=400000)
> End MTD read
>
> With this change:
>
> Start MTD read
> [ 21.942922] intel_spi_read(from=1c00000, len=400000)
> [ 21.942922] intel_spi_read(from=1c00000, len=400000)
> [ 23.784058] intel_spi_read(from=2000000, len=400000)
> [ 23.784058] intel_spi_read(from=2000000, len=400000)
> [ 25.625006] intel_spi_read(from=2400000, len=400000)
> [ 25.625006] intel_spi_read(from=2400000, len=400000)
> End MTD read
I've performed my testing as well and got the following results:
Vanilla Linux 4.9 (i.e. before the introduction of the offending
patch):
dd if=/dev/flash/by-name/XXX of=/dev/null bs=4k
1280+0 records in
1280+0 records out
5242880 bytes (5.2 MB, 5.0 MiB) copied, 3.91981 s, 1.3 MB/s
Vanilla 4.19 (i.e. with offending patch):
dd if=/dev/flash/by-name/XXX of=/dev/null bs=4k
1280+0 records in
1280+0 records out
5242880 bytes (5.2 MB, 5.0 MiB) copied, 6.70891 s, 781 kB/s
4.19 + revert:
dd if=/dev/flash/by-name/XXX of=/dev/null bs=4k
1280+0 records in
1280+0 records out
5242880 bytes (5.2 MB, 5.0 MiB) copied, 3.90503 s, 1.3 MB/s
Therefore it looks good from my PoV:
Tested-by: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Luis Alberto Herrera <luisalberto@...gle.com>
> Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/controllers/intel-spi.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/controllers/intel-spi.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/controllers/intel-spi.c
> index 61d2a0ad2131..2b89361a0d3a 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/controllers/intel-spi.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/controllers/intel-spi.c
> @@ -292,7 +292,7 @@ static int intel_spi_wait_hw_busy(struct intel_spi *ispi)
> u32 val;
>
> return readl_poll_timeout(ispi->base + HSFSTS_CTL, val,
> - !(val & HSFSTS_CTL_SCIP), 40,
> + !(val & HSFSTS_CTL_SCIP), 0,
> INTEL_SPI_TIMEOUT * 1000);
> }
>
> @@ -301,7 +301,7 @@ static int intel_spi_wait_sw_busy(struct intel_spi *ispi)
> u32 val;
>
> return readl_poll_timeout(ispi->sregs + SSFSTS_CTL, val,
> - !(val & SSFSTS_CTL_SCIP), 40,
> + !(val & SSFSTS_CTL_SCIP), 0,
> INTEL_SPI_TIMEOUT * 1000);
> }
>
>
--
Best regards,
Alexander Sverdlin.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists