Re: [PATCH] mmc: Added quirks for Ricoh 1180:e823 lower base clock frequency

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Chris,

btw only the 1st write was slower, subsequent writes looks ok.

 === before ==        === after ==
real    0m0.480s vs real    0m0.757s
real    0m0.476s vs real    0m0.488s
real    0m0.484s vs real    0m0.484s
real    0m0.480s vs real    0m0.486s

I have attached the output of flashbench and the time test to

http://launchpad.net/bugs/773524

Might be easier for side by side comparison. But I have it pasted here as well.

=== FLASHBENCH ================
======== BEFORE PATCH =========
== Guess erase block and page sizes ==
u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ sudo ./flashbench -a /dev/mmcblk0 --blocksize=1024 align 536870912 pre 1.49ms on 3.42ms post 3.06ms diff 1.15ms
align 268435456 pre 1.51ms      on 3.7ms        post 3.09ms     diff 1.4ms
align 134217728 pre 2.19ms on 3.64ms post 3.05ms diff 1.03ms align 67108864 pre 1.49ms on 3.53ms post 3.1ms diff 1.23ms
align 33554432  pre 2.45ms      on 3.79ms       post 3.12ms     diff 999µs
align 16777216 pre 1.46ms on 3.52ms post 3.1ms diff 1.24ms align 8388608 pre 1.46ms on 3.52ms post 3.1ms diff 1.24ms align 4194304 pre 1.46ms on 3.52ms post 3.1ms diff 1.24ms align 2097152 pre 1.46ms on 3.52ms post 3.1ms diff 1.24ms align 1048576 pre 2.02ms on 3.79ms post 3.12ms diff 1.22ms align 524288 pre 2.22ms on 2.39ms post 2.41ms diff 77.6µs align 262144 pre 2.43ms on 2.61ms post 2.61ms diff 95.8µs
align 131072    pre 2.58ms      on 2.77ms       post 2.73ms     diff 111µs
align 65536     pre 2.65ms      on 2.87ms       post 2.74ms     diff 169µs
align 32768     pre 2.7ms       on 2.88ms       post 2.84ms     diff 107µs
align 16384     pre 2.73ms      on 2.91ms       post 2.87ms     diff 111µs
align 8192      pre 2.74ms      on 2.92ms       post 2.88ms     diff 109µs
align 4096 pre 2.9ms on 2.86ms post 2.83ms diff -7395ns align 2048 pre 2.88ms on 2.87ms post 2.86ms diff 2.28µs
u@u:~/flash/flashbench$

== Finding the number of open erase blocks ==
u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ sudo ./flashbench -O --erasesize=$[4 * 1024 * 1024] --blocksize=$[256 * 1024] /dev/mmcblk0 --open-au-nr=2
4MiB    6.36M/s
2MiB    6.24M/s
1MiB    6.17M/s
512KiB  6.19M/s
256KiB  6.22M/s
u@u:~/flash/flashbench$

u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ sudo ./flashbench -O --erasesize=$[4 * 1024 * 1024] --blocksize=$[256 * 1024] /dev/mmcblk0 --open-au-nr=3
4MiB    6.25M/s
2MiB    6.25M/s
1MiB    6.24M/s
512KiB  2.53M/s
256KiB  1.14M/s
u@u:~/flash/flashbench$


====== AFTER PATCH ========
== Guess erase block and page sizes ==
u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ sudo ./flashbench -a /dev/mmcblk0 --blocksize=1024
[sudo] password for u:
align 536870912 pre 1.56ms on 3.53ms post 3.14ms diff 1.18ms align 268435456 pre 1.54ms on 3.52ms post 3.12ms diff 1.19ms
align 134217728 pre 1.5ms       on 3.5ms        post 3.1ms      diff 1.2ms
align 67108864  pre 1.56ms      on 3.68ms       post 3.2ms      diff 1.3ms
align 33554432 pre 1.55ms on 3.6ms post 3.15ms diff 1.25ms align 16777216 pre 1.57ms on 3.62ms post 3.18ms diff 1.25ms align 8388608 pre 1.57ms on 3.61ms post 3.16ms diff 1.24ms align 4194304 pre 1.55ms on 3.6ms post 3.16ms diff 1.24ms align 2097152 pre 1.56ms on 3.61ms post 3.22ms diff 1.22ms align 1048576 pre 1.57ms on 3.62ms post 3.16ms diff 1.25ms
align 524288    pre 2.23ms      on 2.42ms       post 2.44ms     diff 81µs
align 262144    pre 2.49ms      on 2.67ms       post 2.61ms     diff 115µs
align 131072    pre 2.68ms      on 2.87ms       post 2.8ms      diff 129µs
align 65536     pre 2.78ms      on 2.98ms       post 2.85ms     diff 172µs
align 32768     pre 2.8ms       on 2.99ms       post 2.94ms     diff 117µs
align 16384     pre 2.81ms      on 2.99ms       post 2.95ms     diff 117µs
align 8192      pre 2.86ms      on 3ms  post 3.01ms     diff 68.6µs
align 4096 pre 2.96ms on 2.93ms post 2.93ms diff -14207n
align 2048      pre 2.98ms      on 3ms  post 2.98ms     diff 20.1µs
u@u:~/flash/flashbench$

== Finding the number of open erase blocks ==
u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ sudo ./flashbench -O --erasesize=$[4 * 1024 * 1024] --blocksize=$[256 * 1024] /dev/mmcblk0 --open-au-nr=2
[sudo] password for u:
4MiB    5.49M/s
2MiB    6.22M/s
1MiB    6.22M/s
512KiB  6.21M/s
256KiB  6.21M/s
u@u:~/flash/flashbench$

u@u:~/flash/flashbench$ sudo ./flashbench -O --erasesize=$[4 * 1024 * 1024] --blocksize=$[256 * 1024] /dev/mmcblk0 --open-au-nr=3
[sudo] password for u:
4MiB    5.31M/s
2MiB    6.16M/s
1MiB    6.2M/s
512KiB  2.53M/s
256KiB  1.14M/s
u@u:~/flash/flashbench$



On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Chris Ball wrote:

Hi Manoj,

On Tue, Jul 12 2011, Manoj Iyer wrote:
Test System: ThinkPad X220 Tablet, using Sandisk 2GB Class 2 SD, I did
not see any considerable change in read/write times. Also, tested a
Transcend MMCPlus 2GB card, before the patch was applied it would not
mount the card, and would cause IO errors on read/write, but after the
patch it mounts and works correctly.
[..]
============ BEFORE THE PATCH ===============
Sandisk 2GB Class2 SD
=============================================
=== WRITE ===
u@u:~$ ls -lh test.file
-rw-r--r-- 1 u u 10M 2011-07-12 10:19 test.file
u@u:~$ time cp test.file /media/E0FD-1813/copyto

real    0m0.480s
user    0m0.000s
sys     0m0.024s
[..]
============ AFTER THE PATCH =============
Sandisk 2GB Class2 SD
==========================================

=== WRITE ===
u@u:~$ time cp ./test.file /media/E0FD-1813/copyto1

real    0m0.757s
user    0m0.000s
sys     0m0.044s

This suggests that there *was* a considerable difference in write speed, no?

It might be helpful to use Arnd's flashbench tool¹ for further benchmarking,
since it does the right thing with using direct I/O access without caches.

Thanks,

- Chris.

¹: http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/arnd/flashbench.git
--
Chris Ball   <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx>   <http://printf.net/>
One Laptop Per Child



--
====================
Manoj Iyer
Ubuntu/Canonical
Hardware Enablement
====================

[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Media]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux