Maya Erez <merez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Maya Erez <merez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Hi. Merez. > >> > > >> > Thanks a lot about your performance measurement. > >> > > >> > I think that your measurement is enough and correct and the firmware > >> > of mmc vender should be optimized or change properly rather than > >> > modifying the current patch. > >> > > >> > And currently we can use only write packed cmd by my suggestion. > >> > > >> > I would like to add my reviewd-by tag in updated patches also. > >> > > >> > Reviewed-by: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > > >> > Thanks. > >> > >> I tend to disagree. Adding a massive amount of code that would be > >> disabled > >> can be risky. In case this code will not be in use it will not be > >> properly > >> tested and its reliability will be uncertain. > >> > > If you found something to be correct, please let me know that. > > It would be rightly appreciated. > > > > Best regards, > > Seungwon Jeon. > Hi Jeon, > > The write packing code looks good to me. > However, the separation of read and write packing to different patches is > very important to us. > As I specified before, we decided to enable only the write packing. We > plan to thoroughly test the write packing (edge cases and error handling) > and will not test the read packing. Therefore we would like to have the > ability to get only the write packing code. As Namjae Jeon mentioned, how about this? I think only MMC_CAP2_PACKED_WR can be set for enabling the write packing easily. In my case, tested eMMC device is not optimized for packed read. So I couldn't confirm that this patch is effective in packed read. I think packed read as well as packed write of this patch conformed with the eMMC4.5 spec though. I wonder that your eMMC device has the good ability in both operations. It is difficult to decide the performance with excluding the device. Soon I will test it with the improved sample for packed read. > In my previous comment I talked about the risk of mainlining a “dead” > code. Every feature that is integrated is considered to be fully tested > and in the future it might be enabled, assuming that is was already > tested. Right! It is desirable and I hope that. Do you think this patch have the potential problem? As I also ask you, if you have tested and find something is incorrect, we can discuss that. It was submitted for that purpose. > Can you please specify how you tested the read and write packing? Did you > perform edge cases and error handling tests? Do you have test code that > can be shared? Basically, It has been tested with several I/O benchmark tool. Some misvalued I/O timing and wrong argument for packed command was used for triggering the error case. Best regards, Seungwon Jeon. > > Thanks, > Maya Erez > Consultant for 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 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
