On 20/01/12 09:50, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
> On 01/20/2012 04:31 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>
>> On 19/01/12 17:32, S, Venkatraman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 19/01/12 13:33, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
>>>>> Hi Adrian.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/19/2012 07:21 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19/01/12 07:29, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
>>>>>>> Enable eMMC background operations (BKOPS) feature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If URGENT_BKOPS is set after a response, note that BKOPS
>>>>>>> are required. After all I/O requests are finished, run
>>>>>>> BKOPS if required. Should read/write operations be requested
>>>>>>> during BKOPS, first issue HPI to interrupt the ongoing BKOPS
>>>>>>> and then service the request.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This still does not seem to address my earlier comment which was:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The main problem with bkops is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the status is at level 3 ("critical"), some operations
>>>>>> may extend beyond their original timeouts due to maintenance
>>>>>> operations which cannot be delayed anymore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This means:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. at level 3 either bkops are run or the timeout of the next
>>>>>> (data?) operation is extended
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. at level 3 either the bkops must not be interrupted or the
>>>>>> level must be rechecked after interruption and bkops run again
>>>>>> if the level is still 3, or the timeout of the next (data?)
>>>>>> operation is extended
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch didn't issue the HPI when bkops-status is level2-3
>>>>> (URGENT_BKOPS case).
>>>>> I didn't understand that must be recheck?? it's case of using HPI..?
>>>>> If HPI didn't issue,though must be recheck bkops status?
>>>>> And level-1 control should be considered for future-work.
>>>>> I will also modify the patch comment..it's confused something.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Say there are 2 write requests queued and after the first write request
>>>> the bkops level is 3. That means the 2nd write request may timeout because
>>>> the normal timeout rules do not apply.
>>>>
>>>> Thus:
>>>> 1. at level 3 either bkops are run or the timeout of the next
>>>> (data?) operation is extended
>>>>
>>>> 2. Say you are running bkops because the level was 3 and a write request
>>>> arrives. You use HPI to interrupt the bkops, but the bkops level may still
>>>> be 3, so the write request may timeout. Hence:
>>>>
>>>> 2. at level 3 either the bkops must not be interrupted or the
>>>> level must be rechecked after interruption and bkops run again
>>>> if the level is still 3, or the timeout of the next (data?)
>>>> operation is extended
>>>>
>>>
>>> A naive question perhaps, but don't the current timeout values include
>>> sufficient
>>> buffer to do implicit garbage collection anyways ?
>>
>> Maybe, but the problem is the JEDEC specification says otherwise. This bit
>> is a quote:
>>
>> If the status is at level 3 ("critical"), some operations
>> may extend beyond their original timeouts due to maintenance
>> operations which cannot be delayed anymore.
>>
>> I think level 3 is a very rare case so I would just run bkops and wait for
>> it to finish without interruption.
>
> Yes..JEDEC spec say those..but I think not bad that wait for bkops-done..
> actually i didn't know how long time run the bkops...
> so i think the use the hpi command..then re-check the bkops-status until clear status.
> (i think the request's priority is higher than any bkops status)
Not if the request is going to fail with a timeout error because bkops is at
level 3.
>
> it would be open to interpretation that sentence.
>
> Best Regards,
> Jaehoon Chung
>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
--
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
