Maya Erez <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > How can we check the effect?
> > Do you have any result?
> We ran parallel lmdd read and write operations and found out that the
> write packing causes the read throughput to drop from 24MB/s to 12MB/s.
> The write packing control managed to increase the read throughput back to
> the original value.
> We also examined "real life" scenarios, such as performing a big push
> operation in parallel to launching several applications. We measured the
> read latency and found out that with the write packing control the worst
> case of the read latency was smaller.
>
> > Please check the several comment below.
> >
> > Maya Erez <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> The write packing control will ensure that read requests latency is
> >> not increased due to long write packed commands.
> >>
> >> The trigger for enabling the write packing is managing to pack several
> >> write requests. The number of potential packed requests that will
> >> trigger
> >> the packing can be configured via sysfs by writing the required value
> >> to:
> >> /sys/block/<block_dev_name>/num_wr_reqs_to_start_packing.
> >> The trigger for disabling the write packing is fetching a read request.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Documentation/mmc/mmc-dev-attrs.txt | 17 ++++++
> >> drivers/mmc/card/block.c | 100
> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >> drivers/mmc/card/queue.c | 8 +++
> >> drivers/mmc/card/queue.h | 3 +
> >> include/linux/mmc/host.h | 1 +
> >> 5 files changed, 128 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/mmc/mmc-dev-attrs.txt
> >> b/Documentation/mmc/mmc-dev-attrs.txt
> >> index 22ae844..08f7312 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/mmc/mmc-dev-attrs.txt
> >> +++ b/Documentation/mmc/mmc-dev-attrs.txt
> >> @@ -8,6 +8,23 @@ The following attributes are read/write.
> >>
> >> force_ro Enforce read-only access even if write protect
> >> switch is
> >> off.
> >>
> >> + num_wr_reqs_to_start_packing This attribute is used to determine
> >> + the trigger for activating the write packing, in case the write
> >> + packing control feature is enabled.
> >> +
> >> + When the MMC manages to reach a point where
> >> num_wr_reqs_to_start_packing
> >> + write requests could be packed, it enables the write packing feature.
> >> + This allows us to start the write packing only when it is beneficial
> >> + and has minimum affect on the read latency.
> >> +
> >> + The number of potential packed requests that will trigger the packing
> >> + can be configured via sysfs by writing the required value to:
> >> + /sys/block/<block_dev_name>/num_wr_reqs_to_start_packing.
> >> +
> >> + The default value of num_wr_reqs_to_start_packing was determined by
> >> + running parallel lmdd write and lmdd read operations and calculating
> >> + the max number of packed writes requests.
> >> +
> >> SD and MMC Device Attributes
> >> ============================
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/card/block.c b/drivers/mmc/card/block.c
> >> index 2785fd4..ef192fb 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mmc/card/block.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/card/block.c
> >> @@ -114,6 +114,7 @@ struct mmc_blk_data {
> >> struct device_attribute force_ro;
> >> struct device_attribute power_ro_lock;
> >> int area_type;
> >> + struct device_attribute num_wr_reqs_to_start_packing;
> >> };
> >>
> >> static DEFINE_MUTEX(open_lock);
> >> @@ -281,6 +282,38 @@ out:
> >> return ret;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static ssize_t
> >> +num_wr_reqs_to_start_packing_show(struct device *dev,
> >> + struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> >> +{
> >> + struct mmc_blk_data *md = mmc_blk_get(dev_to_disk(dev));
> >> + int num_wr_reqs_to_start_packing;
> >> + int ret;
> >> +
> >> + num_wr_reqs_to_start_packing = md->queue.num_wr_reqs_to_start_packing;
> >> +
> >> + ret = snprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, "%d\n", num_wr_reqs_to_start_packing);
> >> +
> >> + mmc_blk_put(md);
> >> + return ret;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static ssize_t
> >> +num_wr_reqs_to_start_packing_store(struct device *dev,
> >> + struct device_attribute *attr,
> >> + const char *buf, size_t count)
> >> +{
> >> + int value;
> >> + struct mmc_blk_data *md = mmc_blk_get(dev_to_disk(dev));
> >> +
> >> + sscanf(buf, "%d", &value);
> >> + if (value >= 0)
> >> + md->queue.num_wr_reqs_to_start_packing = value;
> >> +
> >> + mmc_blk_put(md);
> >> + return count;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static int mmc_blk_open(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode)
> >> {
> >> struct mmc_blk_data *md = mmc_blk_get(bdev->bd_disk);
> >> @@ -1313,6 +1346,48 @@ static void mmc_blk_rw_rq_prep(struct
> >> mmc_queue_req *mqrq,
> >> mmc_queue_bounce_pre(mqrq);
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static void mmc_blk_write_packing_control(struct mmc_queue *mq,
> >> + struct request *req)
> >> +{
> >> + struct mmc_host *host = mq->card->host;
> >> + int data_dir;
> >> +
> >> + if (!(host->caps2 & MMC_CAP2_PACKED_WR))
> >> + return;
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * In case the packing control is not supported by the host, it should
> >> + * not have an effect on the write packing. Therefore we have to
> >> enable
> >> + * the write packing
> >> + */
> >> + if (!(host->caps2 & MMC_CAP2_PACKED_WR_CONTROL)) {
> >> + mq->wr_packing_enabled = true;
> >> + return;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + if (!req || (req && (req->cmd_flags & REQ_FLUSH))) {
> >> + if (mq->num_of_potential_packed_wr_reqs >
> >> + mq->num_wr_reqs_to_start_packing)
> >> + mq->wr_packing_enabled = true;
> >> + return;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + data_dir = rq_data_dir(req);
> >> +
> >> + if (data_dir == READ) {
> >> + mq->num_of_potential_packed_wr_reqs = 0;
> >> + mq->wr_packing_enabled = false;
> >> + return;
> >> + } else if (data_dir == WRITE) {
> >> + mq->num_of_potential_packed_wr_reqs++;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + if (mq->num_of_potential_packed_wr_reqs >
> >> + mq->num_wr_reqs_to_start_packing)
> >> + mq->wr_packing_enabled = true;
> > Write Packing is available only if continuing write requests are over
> > num_wr_reqs_to_start_packing?
> > That means individual request(1...17) will be issued with non-packing.
> > Could you explain your policy more?
> We try to identify the case where there is parallel read and write
> operations. In our experiments we found out that the number of write
> requests between read requests in parallel read and write operations
> doesn't exceed 17 requests. Therefore, we can assume that fetching more
> than 17 write requests without hitting a read request can indicate that
> there is no read activity.
We can apply this experiment regardless I/O scheduler?
Which I/O scheduler was used with this experiment?
> You are right that this affects the write throughput a bit but the goal of
> this algorithm is to make sure the read throughput and latency are not
> decreased due to write. If this is not the desired result, this algorithm
> can be disabled.
> >> +
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static u8 mmc_blk_prep_packed_list(struct mmc_queue *mq, struct request
> >> *req)
> >> {
> >> struct request_queue *q = mq->queue;
> >> @@ -1332,6 +1407,9 @@ static u8 mmc_blk_prep_packed_list(struct
> >> mmc_queue *mq, struct request *req)
> >> !card->ext_csd.packed_event_en)
> >> goto no_packed;
> >>
> >> + if (!mq->wr_packing_enabled)
> >> + goto no_packed;
> > If wr_packing_enabled is set to true, several write requests can be
> > packed.
> > We don't need to consider read request since packed write?
> I'm not sure I understand the question. We check if there was a read
> request in the mmc_blk_write_packing_control, and in such a case set
> mq->wr_packing_enabled to false.
> If I didn't answer the question, please explain it again.
Packed write can be possible after exceeding 17 requests.
Is it assured that read request doesn't follow immediately after packed write?
I wonder this case.
Thanks,
Seungwon Jeon.
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Seungwon Jeon
>
> Thanks,
> Maya Erez
> --
> Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
