On 17 December 2013 13:33, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 17 December 2013 12:05, Dong Aisheng <dongas86@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 17 December 2013 09:17, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 17/12/13 01:18, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>>> On 12/13/2013 03:43 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>>>> On one of my eMMC devices, I see the following results from calling >>>>>> mmc_do_calc_max_discard() with various parameters: >>>>>> >>>>>> [ 3.057263] MMC_DISCARD_ARG max_discard 1 >>>>>> [ 3.057266] MMC_ERASE_ARG max_discard 4096 >>>>>> [ 3.057267] MMC_TRIM_ARG max_discard 1 >>>>>> >>>>>> This causes mmc_calc_max_discard() to return 1, which makes the discard >>>>>> IOCTL extremely slow. >>>>> >>>>> Further investigation shows that if I make a few hacks that essentially >>>>> revert e056a1b5b67b "mmc: queue: let host controllers specify maximum >>>>> discard timeout": >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/card/queue.c b/drivers/mmc/card/queue.c >>>>> index 357bbc54fe4b..e66af930d0e3 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/card/queue.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/card/queue.c >>>>> @@ -167,13 +167,15 @@ static void mmc_queue_setup_discard(struct >>>>> request_queue *q, >>>>> return; >>>>> >>>>> queue_flag_set_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_DISCARD, q); >>>>> - q->limits.max_discard_sectors = max_discard; >>>>> + q->limits.max_discard_sectors = UINT_MAX; >>>>> if (card->erased_byte == 0 && !mmc_can_discard(card)) >>>>> q->limits.discard_zeroes_data = 1; >>>>> q->limits.discard_granularity = card->pref_erase << 9; >>>>> /* granularity must not be greater than max. discard */ >>>>> +#if 0 >>>>> if (card->pref_erase > max_discard) >>>>> q->limits.discard_granularity = 0; >>>>> +#endif >>>>> if (mmc_can_secure_erase_trim(card)) >>>>> queue_flag_set_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_SECDISCARD, q); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> I end up with: >>>>> >>>>> $ cat /sys/.../block/mmcblk1/queue# cat discard_granularity >>>>> 2097152 >>>>> $ cat /sys/.../block/mmcblk1/queue# cat discard_max_bytes >>>>> 2199023255040 >>>>> $ cat /sys/.../block/mmcblk1/queue# cat discard_zeroes_data >>>>> 1 >>>>> >>>>> With those values, mke2fs is fast, and I validated that "blkdiscard" >>>>> works; I filled a large partition with /dev/urandom, executed >>>>> "blkdiscard" on the 4M at the start, and saw zeroes when reading the >>>>> discarded part back. >>>>> >>>>> This implies that the issue is simply the operation of >>>>> mmc_calc_max_discard(), rather than the eMMC device mis-reporting its >>>>> discard abilities, doesn't it? >>>> >>>> No. >>>> >>>> The underlying problem is a combination of: >>>> a) JEDEC specified very large timeouts for erase operations e.g. can be >>>> minutes for large erases >>>> b) SDHCI controllers have been implemented with high frequency timeout >>>> clocks which limit the maximum timeout to a few seconds >>>> c) It is not possible to disable the timeout on SDHCI >>>> >>>> What a) means is that you can get away with much larger erases than you can >>>> specify the timeout for - which is what you have discovered. >>>> >>>> To understand the timeouts, you should manually do the calculations. >>>> >>>> Also note, that using HC Erase Size may help (MMC_CAP2_HC_ERASE_SZ), but >>>> beware of the partitioning implications of changing that. >>>> >>>> The best solution is to change the hardware to use the lowest possible >>>> frequency timeout clock e.g. a 1KHz timeout clock could support timeouts of >>>> up to 36 hours. >>> >>> Don't know the details about the limitations for SDHCI, but I guess >>> similar exists for other controllers as well. >>> >>> I do get the impression that we have got a problem in the mmc >>> core/block layer for how erase/trim/discard timeouts are being >>> handled. >>> >>> I don't think the mmc hw-controller should be waiting for the R1B >>> response from the CMD38 as long as this "timeout" we are discussing >>> here. According to the spec, at least how I interpret it, the card >>> should respond rather quickly to CMD38, then it will assert the DAT0 >>> line to indicate busy. >>> >> >> For IMX, CMD38 responds very quick since it does not wait for TC interrupt >> when DAT0 de-assertion due to IP limitation. >> >>> The total time the card is allowed to stay busy, that is what the >>> timeout specifies. We may either use a mmc hw-controller busy >>> detection mechanism or send CMD13 to poll for status. The latter is >>> somewhat already being handled in mmc_do_erase(), but we are using >>> "MMC_CORE_TIMEOUT_MS" instead of the correct timeout. >>> >> >> Maybe one better way may be using polling for status if erase timeout >> is bigger than >> host capability, else still prefer to use hw timeout mechanism instead >> to save CPU. > > Nope, this wont work. > > Just because we get the R1B response within some chosen timeout that > does not mean the card has completed it's operation. > > We need to monitor if the card is signalling busy, after the R1B > response has been received to know. Thus polling with CMD13 will be > needed, no matter how. In this context I think it should be worth mentioning about how big the command timeout can be expected to be. "Ncr" (abbreviation from eMMC spec), the response timeout can be a value between 2-64 clock cycles. Kind regards Ulf Hansson > > Kind regards > Ulf Hansson > >> However, then we have two issues: >> 1) not waiting for R1B seems a bit violation with standard spec. >> Also it increase complexity on handling the R1B of the same command >> for two different >> cases: using hw timeout or polling status for CMD38. >> >> 2) In current implementation, the data size to erase will not exceed >> the max_discard_bytes >> which is calculated based on max_discard_to of host. >> Then how do we specify max_discard_to if want to use polling? UNIT_MAX? >> Will it be too long to affect other activities in the same system? > > > >> >> Regards >> Dong Aisheng >> >>> Kind regards >>> Ulf Hansson >>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 -- 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
