From:   =?iso-8859-1?Q?Christian_L=F6hle?= <CLoehle@hyperstone.com>
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
        "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
CC:     Wenchao Chen <wenchao.chen666@gmail.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
        "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH] mmc: core: Disable REQ_FUA if the eMMC supports an
 internal cache
Thread-Topic: [RFC PATCH] mmc: core: Disable REQ_FUA if the eMMC supports an
 internal cache
Thread-Index: AQHZTRVhGw7IamWdbkW+N3YLAv3UBK7nlDEQ
Date:   Thu, 2 Mar 2023 15:07:56 +0000
Message-ID: <5712c69ae37447c5b576d87b247f5756@hyperstone.com>
References: <20230302144330.274947-1-ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230302144330.274947-1-ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

> Subject: [RFC PATCH] mmc: core: Disable REQ_FUA if the eMMC supports an internal cache

Hey Uffe,
I may have the setup to play with this.
(Powerfailing eMMC devices)
> 
> REQ_FUA is in general supported for eMMC cards, which translates into so called "reliable writes". To support these write operations, the CMD23 (MMC_CAP_CMD23), needs to be supported by the mmc host too, which is common but not always the case.
> 
> For some eMMC devices, it has been reported that reliable writes are quite costly, leading to performance degradations.
> 
> In a way to improve the situation, let's avoid announcing REQ_FUA support if the eMMC supports an internal cache, as that allows us to rely solely on flush-requests (REQ_OP_FLUSH) instead, which seems to be a lot cheaper.
> Note that, those mmc hosts that lacks CMD23 support are already using this type of configuration, whatever that could mean.

Just note that reliable write is strictly weaker than turning cache off/flushing,
if card loses power during cache off/flush programming / busy, sector-wise atomicity is not mandated by the spec.
(And that is assuming cache off/flush is actually respected by the card as intended by the spec, should some cards be checked?)
Maybe some FS people can also chime in?

Regards,
Christian

Hyperstone GmbH | Reichenaustr. 39a  | 78467 Konstanz
Managing Director: Dr. Jan Peter Berns.
Commercial register of local courts: Freiburg HRB381782