mmc: block: replace __blk_end_request() with blk_end_request() (ecf8b5d0) · Commits · 戴 / test

For completing any block request, MMC block driver is calling: spin_lock_irq(queue) __blk_end_request() spin_unlock_irq(queue) But if we analyze the sources of latency in kernel using ftrace, __blk_end_request() function at times may take up to 6.5ms with spinlock held and irq disabled. __blk_end_request() calls couple of functions and ftrace output shows that blk_update_bidi_request() function is almost taking 6ms. There are 2 function to end the current request: ___blk_end_request() and blk_end_request(). Both these functions do same thing except that blk_end_request() function doesn't take up the spinlock while calling the blk_update_bidi_request(). This patch replaces all __blk_end_request() calls with blk_end_request() and __blk_end_request_all() calls with blk_end_request_all(). Testing done: 20 process concurrent read/write on sd card and eMMC. Ran this test for almost a day on multicore system and no errors observed. This change is not meant for improving MMC throughput; it's basically about becoming fair to other threads/interrupts in the system. By holding spin lock and interrupts disabled for longer duration, we won't allow other threads/interrupts to run at all. Actually slight performance degradation at file system level can be expected as we are not holding the spin lock during blk_update_bidi_request() which means our mmcqd thread may get preempted for other high priority thread or any interrupt in the system. These are performance numbers (100MB file write) with eMMC running in DDR mode: Without this patch: Name of the Test Value Unit LMDD Read Test 53.79 MBPS LMDD Write Test 18.86 MBPS IOZONE Read Test 51.65 MBPS IOZONE Write Test 24.36 MBPS With this patch: Name of the Test Value Unit LMDD Read Test 52.94 MBPS LMDD Write Test 16.70 MBPS IOZONE Read Test 52.08 MBPS IOZONE Write Test 23.29 MBPS Read numbers are fine. Write numbers are bit down (especially LMDD write), may be because write requests normally have large transfer size and which means there are chances that while mmcq is executing blk_update_bidi_request(), it may get interrupted by interrupts or other high priority thread. Signed-off-by:

Subhash Jadavani <subhashj@codeaurora.org> Reviewed-by:

Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@gmail.com> Signed-off-by:

Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org>

drivers/mmc/card/block.c

+9 −27

Original line number	Diff line number	Diff line
		@@ -850,9 +850,7 @@ out:
		goto retry;
		if (!err)
		mmc_blk_reset_success(md, type);
		spin_lock_irq(&md->lock);
		__blk_end_request(req, err, blk_rq_bytes(req));
		spin_unlock_irq(&md->lock);
		blk_end_request(req, err, blk_rq_bytes(req));

		return err ? 0 : 1;
		}
		@@ -934,9 +932,7 @@ out_retry:
		if (!err)
		mmc_blk_reset_success(md, type);
		out:
		spin_lock_irq(&md->lock);
		__blk_end_request(req, err, blk_rq_bytes(req));
		spin_unlock_irq(&md->lock);
		blk_end_request(req, err, blk_rq_bytes(req));

		return err ? 0 : 1;
		}
		@@ -951,9 +947,7 @@ static int mmc_blk_issue_flush(struct mmc_queue mq, struct request req)
		if (ret)
		ret = -EIO;

		spin_lock_irq(&md->lock);
		__blk_end_request_all(req, ret);
		spin_unlock_irq(&md->lock);
		blk_end_request_all(req, ret);

		return ret ? 0 : 1;
		}
		@@ -1252,14 +1246,10 @@ static int mmc_blk_cmd_err(struct mmc_blk_data md, struct mmc_card card,

		blocks = mmc_sd_num_wr_blocks(card);
		if (blocks != (u32)-1) {
		spin_lock_irq(&md->lock);
		ret = __blk_end_request(req, 0, blocks << 9);
		spin_unlock_irq(&md->lock);
		ret = blk_end_request(req, 0, blocks << 9);
		}
		} else {
		spin_lock_irq(&md->lock);
		ret = __blk_end_request(req, 0, brq->data.bytes_xfered);
		spin_unlock_irq(&md->lock);
		ret = blk_end_request(req, 0, brq->data.bytes_xfered);
		}
		return ret;
		}
		@@ -1311,10 +1301,8 @@ static int mmc_blk_issue_rw_rq(struct mmc_queue mq, struct request rqc)
		* A block was successfully transferred.
		*/
		mmc_blk_reset_success(md, type);
		spin_lock_irq(&md->lock);
		ret = __blk_end_request(req, 0,
		ret = blk_end_request(req, 0,
		brq->data.bytes_xfered);
		spin_unlock_irq(&md->lock);
		/*
		* If the blk_end_request function returns non-zero even
		* though all data has been transferred and no errors
		@@ -1364,10 +1352,8 @@ static int mmc_blk_issue_rw_rq(struct mmc_queue mq, struct request rqc)
		* time, so we only reach here after trying to
		* read a single sector.
		*/
		spin_lock_irq(&md->lock);
		ret = __blk_end_request(req, -EIO,
		ret = blk_end_request(req, -EIO,
		brq->data.blksz);
		spin_unlock_irq(&md->lock);
		if (!ret)
		goto start_new_req;
		break;
		@@ -1388,12 +1374,10 @@ static int mmc_blk_issue_rw_rq(struct mmc_queue mq, struct request rqc)
		return 1;

		cmd_abort:
		spin_lock_irq(&md->lock);
		if (mmc_card_removed(card))
		req->cmd_flags \|= REQ_QUIET;
		while (ret)
		ret = __blk_end_request(req, -EIO, blk_rq_cur_bytes(req));
		spin_unlock_irq(&md->lock);
		ret = blk_end_request(req, -EIO, blk_rq_cur_bytes(req));

		start_new_req:
		if (rqc) {
		@@ -1417,9 +1401,7 @@ static int mmc_blk_issue_rq(struct mmc_queue mq, struct request req)
		ret = mmc_blk_part_switch(card, md);
		if (ret) {
		if (req) {
		spin_lock_irq(&md->lock);
		__blk_end_request_all(req, -EIO);
		spin_unlock_irq(&md->lock);
		blk_end_request_all(req, -EIO);
		}
		ret = 0;
		goto out;

Admin message