linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] mmc: rtsx: improve rw performance

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:   Thu, 9 Dec 2021 02:54:33 +0000
From:   Ricky WU <ricky_wu@...ltek.com>
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
CC:     "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "tommyhebb@...il.com" <tommyhebb@...il.com>,
        "linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] mmc: rtsx: improve rw performance

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 6:27 PM
> To: Ricky WU <ricky_wu@...ltek.com>
> Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; tommyhebb@...il.com;
> linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: rtsx: improve rw performance
> 
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 13:09, Ricky WU <ricky_wu@...ltek.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
> > > Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 10:33 PM
> > > To: Ricky WU <ricky_wu@...ltek.com>
> > > Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; tommyhebb@...il.com;
> > > linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: rtsx: improve rw performance
> > >
> > > On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 at 11:43, Ricky WU <ricky_wu@...ltek.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > sd_check_seq() to distinguish sequential rw or normal rw if this
> > > > data is sequential call to sd_rw_sequential()
> > >
> > > Can you please extend this commit message? This doesn't answer why
> > > or what this change really does, please try to do that, as to help me to
> review this.
> > >
> >
> > This patch is for improving sequential read/write performance.
> 
> I would not use the term "sequential", but rather "multi-block read/writes".
> 
> > Before this, whether CMD is muti-RW or single-RW the driver do the same
> flow.
> > This patch distinguishes the two and do different flow to get more
> > performance on sequential RW.
> 
> Alright, thanks for clarifying.
> 
> So to be clear, please update the commit message to say that it's improving
> performance for multi-block read/write. Then please add also some
> information about how that is achieved.
> 
> Moreover, please rename the functions in the code according to this as well, as
> to make it more clear. For example, use sd_rw_multi() (and
> sd_rw_single() if that is needed), rather than sd_rw_sequential().
> 
> > sd_check_seq() to distinguish sequential RW (CMD 18/25) or normal RW
> > (CMD 17/24) if the data is sequential call to sd_rw_sequential()
> 
> I will wait for a v2 from you, then I will give it another try to review.
> 

Ok, I will do the v2 patch.
And I need to clarify, this patch is improving performance 
that the CMD is multi-block and the date is sequential. 
I will change the function name for more clarity.

> [...]
> 
> Kind regards
> Uffe
> ------Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.