> S, Venkatraman <svenkatr@xxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Seungwon Jeon <tgih.jun@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> > This patch adds packed command feature of eMMC4.5. >> > The maximum number for packing read(or write) is offered >> > and exception event relevant to packed command which is >> > used for error handling is enabled. If host wants to use >> > this feature, MMC_CAP2_PACKED_CMD should be set. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Seungwon Jeon <tgih.jun@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Can you please post some clear performance benchmarks with your patchset >> ? >> Given that #merez claims to see a significant performance drop for >> reads, it will be >> good to compare notes. >> If it's not too much trouble, both CFQ and deadline scheduler figures >> would be useful, on a >> set of read only, write only and parallel read write usecases. >> >> I can also try to replicate your results if you can publish the exact >> configuration you used >> for testing (example: iozone parameters) > I'm checking the merez's result. > Currently packed command is effective on write. > When running packed write with iozone, there is 25% performance gains. > (ex: iozone -az -i0 -I -s 10m -f /target/test -e) > Our tests shows performance gain of 50-60% in scenarios of only write lmdd operations. As I mentioned in the write packing control thread the degradation of read performance in case of mix read/write operations appears also without write packing. Therefore I don't think it should stop us from approving the write packing patch, that gives a significant improvement to the write performance. The read performance degradation should be resolved regardless of the write packing patch. Thanks, Maya Erez -- Sent by consultant of 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
