Received: by 2002:ac0:a594:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m20-v6csp763840imm; Tue, 15 May 2018 08:50:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZrRoA4nTxSziYb5JLA8//BC2Jku6X1c7VhCc5J39J49ySd5JVQlOea1YmhwsTTK0TIJwtcc X-Received: by 2002:a62:9c93:: with SMTP id u19-v6mr15829365pfk.74.1526399456587; Tue, 15 May 2018 08:50:56 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1526399456; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Ej/DD0Rrt5keqGSSRTHMZfY+1n6bciis5JDFhsw0zsGaNX3FD9r93r0+fvP6mBFUJ5 EKu4jvbvaO0CVm8rvYFbSpPY/Nq3oNB44B7xyMNSHRSqakK2Ny6/ZEy0yjJao9tKq0Ny bKhJzv60L0iTM/iYT7hDVxIfr7Ygg783Q6XMZF/jarst1usBDKyFCAj9I11j/u9W28qt TXAH4aiCFjTG0fI2mP+VO8V+XPVpS8KYoV9WptTAVnoy+HFBA+4j2mIjxfY279lg3YIa Qy7Vw3eDiJvvbb6jT7lVv1QvdqIdD8KH6ylbMOlyaUwC4SK5xNCC0PKW+ZkDdmcIUkp9 dJ/w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject:dkim-signature :arc-authentication-results; bh=kFjotGlQHFOUCEcsv8bPe+7KiJTbn8+9CqWx0AZAFDc=; b=oReEJ9U7wCw3HmgcJBKHBn8OQl8SXDooONKTVgffk3YbnqVCidXdvUzpShYmJMXnhn LsBtqAjvrASe+0PZBsU5ejxiQwPPjnhdGU7rMi+EWQzXQdMf4DipSWNyw6BGm9sjzOcJ xc2Mn2roT0oolCIWK7bukO5qrXq1yg9DKDf/43UrBu8/2UXTMurO7TzA6EP6h7HRzcG7 fZl8yrJJhv8qj8KVTjwnyASYsqcJ8J/8ScXheD2BvKdF0wuhp/7vqkVMSNAzfL3F2EIX M5FvjbYDugBT182Kvo8hizXkDIO3gz26J5Lo+vgLNKjy1yfdovIi17mTDvkqIeUlrw+W h6BQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@ti.com header.s=ti-com-17Q1 header.b=whTHDpfZ; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=QUARANTINE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ti.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id l7-v6si329354plt.197.2018.05.15.08.50.33; Tue, 15 May 2018 08:50:56 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@ti.com header.s=ti-com-17Q1 header.b=whTHDpfZ; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=QUARANTINE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ti.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753426AbeEOPJc (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 15 May 2018 11:09:32 -0400 Received: from lelnx193.ext.ti.com ([198.47.27.77]:31425 "EHLO lelnx193.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752606AbeEOPJb (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 May 2018 11:09:31 -0400 Received: from dlelxv90.itg.ti.com ([172.17.2.17]) by lelnx193.ext.ti.com (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTP id w4FF9U84023571; Tue, 15 May 2018 10:09:30 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1526396970; bh=kFjotGlQHFOUCEcsv8bPe+7KiJTbn8+9CqWx0AZAFDc=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=whTHDpfZ1kK6DteSs3j6idnWE5HA1gQpgoa8LwZM2ohBf9OF++s+7xjNX9nFsX34P BigPTZy0O9qG5EY3tyL8GYcrZeBYANJPKFK6UoAgPKc5OUWY12toaaYKVdvmuQd0Rv nhzvY6mlrkrRPnV1SwQ6USkuGq3Lab1jlat/DMzw= Received: from DFLE103.ent.ti.com (dfle103.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.24]) by dlelxv90.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w4FF9UZR019628; Tue, 15 May 2018 10:09:30 -0500 Received: from DFLE111.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.32) by DFLE103.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3; Tue, 15 May 2018 10:09:30 -0500 Received: from dflp33.itg.ti.com (10.64.6.16) by DFLE111.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1466.3 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 15 May 2018 10:09:30 -0500 Received: from [172.24.190.215] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by dflp33.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w4FF9RwM003203; Tue, 15 May 2018 10:09:28 -0500 Subject: Re: MMC performance degradation due to too many requests To: Linus Walleij CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-omap , linux-mmc , Ulf Hansson References: <0ea1d2bf-fa0f-4b3d-556a-5dca5afbf2a9@ti.com> From: Faiz Abbas Message-ID: <3e2c96fa-273e-192f-1caf-788de7659592@ti.com> Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 20:41:02 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Linus, On Tuesday 15 May 2018 06:09 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Faiz Abbas wrote: > >> Also, I see many times the number of interrupts for mmc1 in 4.14. > (...) >> I also printed out the size of the DMA transfers in the omap_hsmmc >> driver during the dd command. I see that the maximum size of the dma >> transfer has decreased from 1 MB to 256kB between 4.13 and 4.14. > > This seems like my fault for removing the bounce buffer. > (The name bounce buffer is misleading, I suspect the right > term for what is was doing was "merge buffer" or something, > coalescing physically consecutive requests.) > > commit de3ee99b097dd51938276e3af388cd4ad0f2750a > "mmc: Delete bounce buffer handling" > should be the culprit. I don't think so. I checked out to the commit before that and see that the interrupts are still too high. > > The bounce buffer only makes any performance impact if the > host DMA controller is unable to handle scatter-gather lists > so the number of segments is set down to 1. > > Can you verifty that: > - mmc->max_segs == 1 No. It is 64 in v4.14. It was 1024 in v4.13. v4.14 https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/4wXB2jb6zw/ v4.13 https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/dpd6kb4YJY/ > - You were previously enabling CONFIG_MMC_BLOCK_BOUNCE Yes. Regards, Faiz