From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93BCCC04AA7 for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 11:34:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DFB72070D for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 11:34:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=renesasgroup.onmicrosoft.com header.i=@renesasgroup.onmicrosoft.com header.b="e8Z4tW7p" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728109AbfEMLeF (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 May 2019 07:34:05 -0400 Received: from mail-eopbgr1400109.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([40.107.140.109]:12320 "EHLO JPN01-TY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727838AbfEMLeF (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 May 2019 07:34:05 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=renesasgroup.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-renesas-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=4y4Ip7zOXuqrS2Exm99mlZjKd8zdXkfmeRQJRcottyA=; b=e8Z4tW7pKl9wQphUFUG/3KQpenGbdzXxQmoDys8+THESHpPzpjmYGT5mKUnoIHo5smGIiN4m34T2NwJeRKk0o1mtMW4WjqItn/rHPoo2UKHn9mWlYii96IPXPfxqZoJjQyWPnIQESgbfhp7ZKeiRQJtyfu8dYi3QVqrdTnwUuoM= Received: from OSBPR01MB3174.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (20.176.240.146) by OSBPR01MB2965.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (52.134.254.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1878.22; Mon, 13 May 2019 11:34:02 +0000 Received: from OSBPR01MB3174.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::f873:6332:738d:7213]) by OSBPR01MB3174.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::f873:6332:738d:7213%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1878.024; Mon, 13 May 2019 11:34:02 +0000 From: Yoshihiro Shimoda To: Wolfram Sang CC: "ulf.hansson@linaro.org" , "wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com" , "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org" Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] mmc: renesas_sdhi: use multiple segments if possible Thread-Topic: [PATCH v2 2/2] mmc: renesas_sdhi: use multiple segments if possible Thread-Index: AQHVCUUKmVh+8cTBr0GLk/9Xe/IGjKZowjMAgAAKVjCAAB+lcA== Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 11:34:02 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1557721744-30545-1-git-send-email-yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@renesas.com> <1557721744-30545-3-git-send-email-yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@renesas.com> <20190513090054.GA15744@kunai> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: ja-JP, en-US Content-Language: ja-JP X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@renesas.com; x-originating-ip: [118.238.235.108] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 069484d9-2ec0-4b19-ec94-08d6d796e64a x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(4618075)(2017052603328)(7193020);SRVR:OSBPR01MB2965; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: OSBPR01MB2965: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:7219; x-forefront-prvs: 0036736630 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM;SFS:(10019020)(346002)(136003)(396003)(39860400002)(366004)(376002)(52314003)(199004)(189003)(486006)(66066001)(54906003)(11346002)(446003)(71190400001)(71200400001)(8676002)(81166006)(76116006)(316002)(8936002)(66476007)(73956011)(66946007)(66556008)(64756008)(66446008)(74316002)(81156014)(3846002)(2906002)(186003)(305945005)(6116002)(33656002)(2940100002)(256004)(26005)(14444005)(7736002)(6916009)(476003)(55016002)(99286004)(7696005)(76176011)(9686003)(25786009)(14454004)(6246003)(102836004)(6436002)(53936002)(5660300002)(86362001)(229853002)(478600001)(68736007)(6506007)(52536014)(4326008);DIR:OUT;SFP:1102;SCL:1;SRVR:OSBPR01MB2965;H:OSBPR01MB3174.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;SPF:None;LANG:en;PTR:InfoNoRecords;A:1;MX:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: renesas.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: hw7lUaam/f/t9O47kK9r62zKspIzBo6KFEx+7cpfBheZGy4YsGcWoedK5b/zHef0TZ1tQHvlzd5IFdU1E4L0VQ/qBgMw67j2Pk6kj3CD7Z5zyhAw8txV7WEOGrf7ujLSWMqzPD3stJljqk1VlLmiKQ/ttDNMjpZ2M4oafUR20br7E5zqHsL3sAPnTpE5l4KrghTg00eEiM5tQ0boi14XcT/jH67+RD5gqzG4/9+KIelHzp2w/+UtITUmk4ZZ9Oj7FrbEiOoHz2paisNMQXXNizbWPVYCfMVbD9/kq6ygt3z6rEMCQ9Oj6e53Kjv9sDQ+u4UFwK5CB3Ho5hw2m+Ejk1piMzJRr7LMZcHy39Fhii7Fjg7LqWOmPR7b7hH7xW/6YyIPgKH89WQUqnP5BjEb7uGGSyXOYvU7cupDotXKTD4= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: renesas.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 069484d9-2ec0-4b19-ec94-08d6d796e64a X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 May 2019 11:34:02.7040 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 53d82571-da19-47e4-9cb4-625a166a4a2a X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: OSBPR01MB2965 Sender: linux-renesas-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org Hi Wolfram-san, > From: Yoshihiro Shimoda, Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 6:46 PM > > That also means, for the sys-dmac and Gen2, we then use 512 for the > > IOMMU case and 32 (default TMIO value) for the non IOMMU case. My > > understanding is that SYS DMAC can handle 512 in both cases. Maybe it > > makes sense then to make an incremental patch setting the max_segs valu= e > > explicitly to 512 in the sys-dmac driver for Gen2? >=20 > I also think SYS DMAC can handle 512 segments. However, I'm not sure > it can improve the performance or not though. Anyway, an incremental patc= h > makes sense if needed, I think. I measured the performance on R-Car H2 Lager. It seems 512 segments improve the sequential input to 5%. May I make an incremental patch on the patch se= ries? What do you think? Best regards, Yoshihiro Shimoda -- kernel v5.1-rc7 + local patches + sdr104,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Buildroot 2019.02.1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Bonnie++ 1.03e : bonnie\+\+ -d ./ -s 2048 -r 1024 -b -u root,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,= ,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, environment,Size,Sequential Output - per char (K/sec),<- (CPU %),Sequential= Output - block (K/sec),<- (CPU %),Sequential Output - rewrite (K/sec),<- (= CPU %),Sequential Input - per char (K/sec),<- (CPU %),Sequential Input ? bl= ock (K/sec),<- (CPU %),Random seeks,<- (CPU %),files,Sequential Create,<- (= CPU %),Sequential Read,<- (CPU %),Sequential Delete,<- (CPU %),Random Creat= e,<- (CPU %),Random Read,<- (CPU %),Random Delete,<- (CPU %) max_segs_32_sys_dmac,2G,19651,45,18122,7,11612,5,31417,56,34344,6,20.9,0,16= ,183,1,+++++,+++,195,1,198,2,+++++,+++,195,2 max_segs_512_sys_dmac,2G,18728,43,18273,8,12405,5,33524,61,34158,6,21.0,0,1= 6,184,1,+++++,+++,189,1,198,2,+++++,+++,194,2