On Saturday 19 February 2011 00:17:51 Andrei Warkentin wrote: > # echo 0 > /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/page_size > # ./flashbench -A -b 1024 /dev/block/mmcblk0p9 > write align 8388608 pre 3.59ms on 6.54ms post 3.65ms diff 2.92ms > write align 4194304 pre 4.13ms on 7.37ms post 4.27ms diff 3.17ms > write align 2097152 pre 3.62ms on 6.81ms post 3.94ms diff 3.03ms > write align 1048576 pre 3.62ms on 6.53ms post 3.55ms diff 2.95ms > write align 524288 pre 3.62ms on 6.51ms post 3.63ms diff 2.88ms > write align 262144 pre 3.62ms on 6.51ms post 3.63ms diff 2.89ms > write align 131072 pre 3.62ms on 6.5ms post 3.63ms diff 2.88ms > write align 65536 pre 3.61ms on 6.49ms post 3.62ms diff 2.88ms > write align 32768 pre 3.61ms on 6.49ms post 3.61ms diff 2.88ms > write align 16384 pre 3.68ms on 107ms post 3.51ms diff 103ms > write align 8192 pre 3.74ms on 121ms post 3.91ms diff 117ms > write align 4096 pre 3.88ms on 3.87ms post 3.87ms diff -2937ns > write align 2048 pre 3.89ms on 3.88ms post 3.88ms diff -8734ns > # fjnh84@fjnh84-desktop:~/src/n/src/flash$ adb -s 17006185428011d7 shell > # echo 8192 > /sys/block/mmcblk0/device/page_size > # cd data > # ./flashbench -A -b 1024 /dev/block/mmcblk0p9 > write align 8388608 pre 3.33ms on 6.8ms post 3.65ms diff 3.31ms > write align 4194304 pre 4.34ms on 8.14ms post 4.53ms diff 3.71ms > write align 2097152 pre 3.64ms on 7.31ms post 4.09ms diff 3.44ms > write align 1048576 pre 3.65ms on 7.52ms post 3.65ms diff 3.87ms > write align 524288 pre 3.62ms on 6.8ms post 3.63ms diff 3.17ms > write align 262144 pre 3.62ms on 6.84ms post 3.63ms diff 3.22ms > write align 131072 pre 3.62ms on 6.85ms post 3.44ms diff 3.32ms > write align 65536 pre 3.39ms on 6.8ms post 3.66ms diff 3.28ms > write align 32768 pre 3.64ms on 6.86ms post 3.66ms diff 3.21ms > write align 16384 pre 3.67ms on 6.86ms post 3.65ms diff 3.2ms > write align 8192 pre 3.66ms on 6.84ms post 3.64ms diff 3.19ms > write align 4096 pre 3.71ms on 3.71ms post 3.64ms diff 38.6µs > write align 2048 pre 3.71ms on 3.71ms post 3.72ms diff -656ns > > This was with the split unaligned accesses patch... Which I am > attaching for comments. I agree, this is very fascinating behavior. 100ms second latency for a single 2KB access is definitely something we should try to avoid, and I wonder why the drive decides to do that. It must get into a state where it requires an extra garbage collection (you mentioned that earlier). The numbers you see here are taken over multiple runs. Do you see a lot of fluctuation when doing this with --count=1? Also, does the same happen with other blocksizes, e.g. 4096 or 8192, passed to flashbench? Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
