On 19/10/17 14:44, Adrian Hunter wrote: > On 18/10/17 09:16, Adrian Hunter wrote: >> On 11/10/17 16:58, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> On 11 October 2017 at 14:58, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 11/10/17 15:13, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>>>> On 10 October 2017 at 15:31, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> On 10/10/17 16:08, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I have also run some test on my ux500 board and enabling the blkmq >>>>>>>>>>> path via the new MMC Kconfig option. My idea was to run some iozone >>>>>>>>>>> comparisons between the legacy path and the new blkmq path, but I just >>>>>>>>>>> couldn't get to that point because of the following errors. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am using a Kingston 4GB SDHC card, which is detected and mounted >>>>>>>>>>> nicely. However, when I decide to do some writes to the card I get the >>>>>>>>>>> following errors. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> root@ME:/mnt/sdcard dd if=/dev/zero of=testfile bs=8192 count=5000 conv=fsync >>>>>>>>>>> [ 463.714294] mmci-pl18x 80126000.sdi0_per1: error during DMA transfer! >>>>>>>>>>> [ 464.722656] mmci-pl18x 80126000.sdi0_per1: error during DMA transfer! >>>>>>>>>>> [ 466.081481] mmci-pl18x 80126000.sdi0_per1: error during DMA transfer! >>>>>>>>>>> [ 467.111236] mmci-pl18x 80126000.sdi0_per1: error during DMA transfer! >>>>>>>>>>> [ 468.669647] mmci-pl18x 80126000.sdi0_per1: error during DMA transfer! >>>>>>>>>>> [ 469.685699] mmci-pl18x 80126000.sdi0_per1: error during DMA transfer! >>>>>>>>>>> [ 471.043334] mmci-pl18x 80126000.sdi0_per1: error during DMA transfer! >>>>>>>>>>> [ 472.052337] mmci-pl18x 80126000.sdi0_per1: error during DMA transfer! >>>>>>>>>>> [ 473.342651] mmci-pl18x 80126000.sdi0_per1: error during DMA transfer! >>>>>>>>>>> [ 474.323760] mmci-pl18x 80126000.sdi0_per1: error during DMA transfer! >>>>>>>>>>> [ 475.544769] mmci-pl18x 80126000.sdi0_per1: error during DMA transfer! >>>>>>>>>>> [ 476.539031] mmci-pl18x 80126000.sdi0_per1: error during DMA transfer! >>>>>>>>>>> [ 477.748474] mmci-pl18x 80126000.sdi0_per1: error during DMA transfer! >>>>>>>>>>> [ 478.724182] mmci-pl18x 80126000.sdi0_per1: error during DMA transfer! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I haven't yet got the point of investigating this any further, and >>>>>>>>>>> unfortunate I have a busy schedule with traveling next week. I will do >>>>>>>>>>> my best to look into this as soon as I can. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you have some ideas? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The behaviour depends on whether you have MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY. Try >>>>>>>>>> changing that and see if it makes a difference. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, it does! I disabled MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY (and its >>>>>>>>> corresponding code in mmci.c) and the errors goes away. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When I use MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY I get these problems: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [ 223.820983] mmci-pl18x 80126000.sdi0_per1: error during DMA transfer! >>>>>>>>> [ 224.815795] mmci-pl18x 80126000.sdi0_per1: error during DMA transfer! >>>>>>>>> [ 226.034881] mmci-pl18x 80126000.sdi0_per1: error during DMA transfer! >>>>>>>>> [ 227.112884] mmci-pl18x 80126000.sdi0_per1: error during DMA transfer! >>>>>>>>> [ 227.220275] mmc0: Card stuck in wrong state! mmcblk0 mmc_blk_card_stuck >>>>>>>>> [ 228.686798] mmci-pl18x 80126000.sdi0_per1: error during DMA transfer! >>>>>>>>> [ 229.892150] mmci-pl18x 80126000.sdi0_per1: error during DMA transfer! >>>>>>>>> [ 231.031890] mmci-pl18x 80126000.sdi0_per1: error during DMA transfer! >>>>>>>>> [ 232.239013] mmci-pl18x 80126000.sdi0_per1: error during DMA transfer! >>>>>>>>> 5000+0 records in >>>>>>>>> 5000+0 records out >>>>>>>>> root@ME:/mnt/sdcard >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I looked at the new blkmq code from patch v10 13/15. It seems like the >>>>>>>>> MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY is used to determine whether the async request >>>>>>>>> mechanism should be used or not. Perhaps I didn't looked close enough, >>>>>>>>> but maybe you could elaborate on why this seems to be the case!? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY is necessary because it means that a data transfer >>>>>>>> request has finished when the host controller calls mmc_request_done(). i.e. >>>>>>>> polling the card is not necessary. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, that is a rather big change on its own. Earlier we polled with >>>>>>> CMD13 to verify that the card has moved back to the transfer state, in >>>>>>> case it was a write. And that was no matter of MMC_CAP_WAIT_WHILE_BUSY >>>>>>> was set or not. Right!? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not sure it's a good idea to bypass that validation, it seems >>>>>>> fragile to rely only on the busy detection on DAT line for writes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you cite something from the specifications that backs that up, because I >>>>>> couldn't find anything to suggest that CMD13 polling was expected. >>>>> >>>>> No I can't, but I don't see why that matters. >>>>> >>>>> My point is, if we want to go down that road by avoiding the CMD13 >>>>> polling, that needs to be a separate change, which we can test and >>>>> confirm on its own. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Have you tried V9 or V10. There was a fix in V9 related to calling >>>>>>>> ->post_req() which could mess up DMA. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have used V10. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The other thing that could go wrong with DMA is if it cannot accept >>>>>>>> ->post_req() being called from mmc_request_done(). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think mmci has a problem with that, however why do you want to >>>>>>> do this? Wouldn't that defeat some of the benefits with the async >>>>>>> request mechanism? >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps - but it would need to be tested. If there are more requests >>>>>> waiting, one optimization could be to defer ->post_req() until after the >>>>>> next request is started. >>>>> >>>>> This is already proven, because this how the existing mmc async >>>>> request mechanism works. >>>>> >>>>> In ->post_req() callbacks, host drivers may do dma_unmap_sg(), which >>>>> is something that could be costly and therefore it's better to start a >>>>> new request before, such these things can go on in parallel. >>>> >>>> OK I will make a patch that takes care of both issues. That will also mean >>>> the request is not completed in the ->done() callback because ->post_req() >>>> must precede block layer completion. >>> >>> Right. >>> >>> Actually completing the request in the ->done callback, may still be >>> possible, because in principle it only needs to inform the other >>> prepared request that it may start, before it continues to post >>> process/completes the current one. >>> >>> However, by looking at for example how mmci.c works, it actually holds >>> its spinlock while it calls mmc_request_done(). The same spinlock is >>> taken in the ->request() function, but not in the ->post_req() >>> function. In other words, completing the request in the ->done() >>> callback, would make mmci to keep the spinlock held throughout the >>> post processing cycle, which then prevents the next request from being >>> started. >>> >>> So my conclusion is, let's start a as you suggested, by not completing >>> the request in ->done() as to maintain existing behavior. Then we can >>> address optimizations on top, which very likely will involve doing >>> changes to host drivers as well. >> >> Have you tested the latest version now? >> > > Ping? Still ping?
