> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-mmc-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-mmc- > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Hunter > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 4:31 PM > To: Bough Chen <haibo.chen@xxxxxxx>; Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@rock- > chips.com> > Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-mmc <linux- > mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Alex Lemberg <alex.lemberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Mateusz > Nowak <mateusz.nowak@xxxxxxxxx>; Yuliy Izrailov > <Yuliy.Izrailov@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@xxxxxxxxxxx>; > Dong Aisheng <dongas86@xxxxxxxxx>; Das Asutosh > <asutoshd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@xxxxxxxxx>; > Dorfman Konstantin <kdorfman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sahitya Tummala > <stummala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Harjani Ritesh <riteshh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Venu > Byravarasu <vbyravarasu@xxxxxxxxxx>; Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 09/11] mmc: block: Add CQE support > > On 09/08/17 11:16, Adrian Hunter wrote: > > On 09/08/17 10:57, Bough Chen wrote: > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: linux-mmc-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-mmc- > >>> owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Hunter > >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 1:58 PM > >>> To: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Bough Chen > >>> <haibo.chen@xxxxxxx> > >>> Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-mmc <linux- > >>> mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Alex Lemberg <alex.lemberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>; > >>> Mateusz Nowak <mateusz.nowak@xxxxxxxxx>; Yuliy Izrailov > >>> <Yuliy.Izrailov@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Jaehoon Chung > >>> <jh80.chung@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Dong Aisheng <dongas86@xxxxxxxxx>; Das > >>> Asutosh <asutoshd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Zhangfei Gao > >>> <zhangfei.gao@xxxxxxxxx>; Dorfman Konstantin > >>> <kdorfman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sahitya Tummala > >>> <stummala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Harjani Ritesh <riteshh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > >>> Venu Byravarasu <vbyravarasu@xxxxxxxxxx>; Linus Walleij > >>> <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 09/11] mmc: block: Add CQE support > >>> > >>> On 09/08/17 03:55, Shawn Lin wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> On 2017/8/8 20:07, Bough Chen wrote: > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: Adrian Hunter [mailto:adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx] > >>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 5:50 PM > >>>>>> To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>> Cc: linux-mmc <linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Bough Chen > >>>>>> <haibo.chen@xxxxxxx>; Alex Lemberg <alex.lemberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>; > >>>>>> Mateusz Nowak <mateusz.nowak@xxxxxxxxx>; Yuliy Izrailov > >>>>>> <Yuliy.Izrailov@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Jaehoon Chung > >>>>>> <jh80.chung@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Dong Aisheng <dongas86@xxxxxxxxx>; > Das > >>>>>> Asutosh <asutoshd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Zhangfei Gao > >>>>>> <zhangfei.gao@xxxxxxxxx>; Dorfman Konstantin > >>>>>> <kdorfman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; David Griego > >>>>>> <david.griego@xxxxxxxxxx>; Sahitya Tummala > >>>>>> <stummala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Harjani Ritesh > >>>>>> <riteshh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Venu Byravarasu > >>>>>> <vbyravarasu@xxxxxxxxxx>; Linus Walleij > >>>>>> <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>; Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>> Subject: [PATCH V4 09/11] mmc: block: Add CQE support > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Add CQE support to the block driver, including: > >>>>>> - optionally using DCMD for flush requests > >>>>>> - manually issuing discard requests > >>>>>> - issuing read / write requests to the CQE > >>>>>> - supporting block-layer timeouts > >>>>>> - handling recovery > >>>>>> - supporting re-tuning > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> drivers/mmc/core/block.c | 195 > >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > >>>>>> drivers/mmc/core/block.h | 7 ++ > >>>>>> drivers/mmc/core/queue.c | 273 > >>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > >>>>>> drivers/mmc/core/queue.h | 42 +++++++- > >>>>>> 4 files changed, 510 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/block.c b/drivers/mmc/core/block.c > >>>>>> index > >>>>>> 915290c74363..2d25115637b7 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/block.c > >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/block.c > >>>>>> @@ -109,6 +109,7 @@ struct mmc_blk_data { > >>>>>> #define MMC_BLK_WRITE BIT(1) > >>>>>> #define MMC_BLK_DISCARD BIT(2) > >>>>>> #define MMC_BLK_SECDISCARD BIT(3) > >>>>>> +#define MMC_BLK_CQE_RECOVERY BIT(4) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> /* > >>>>>> * Only set in main mmc_blk_data associated @@ -1612,6 > >>>>>> +1613,198 @@ static void mmc_blk_data_prep(struct mmc_queue > *mq, > >>>>>> struct mmc_queue_req *mqrq, > >>>>>> *do_data_tag_p = do_data_tag; > >>>>>> } > >>>>>> > >>>>>> +#define MMC_CQE_RETRIES 2 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> + blk_queue_rq_timed_out(mq->queue, mmc_cqe_timed_out); > >>>>>> + blk_queue_rq_timeout(mq->queue, 60 * HZ); > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> ------8<------- > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Adrian, > >>>>> > >>>>> These days I'm doing CMDQ stress test, and find one issue. > >>>>> On our i.MX8QXP-ARM2 board, the RAM is 3GB. eMMC is 32GB. > >>>>> I use command 'free -m' get the total memory is 2800M, and the > >>>>> free memory is 2500M. > >>>>> > >>>>> I use 'mkfs.ext4' to format ext4 file system on the eMMC under > >>>>> HS400ES CMDQ mode, works fine. > >>>>> > >>>>> When I use the following command to stress test CMDQ, it works fine. > >>>>> bonnie++ -d /run/media/mmcblk0p1/ -u 0:0 -s 2048 -r 1024 > >>>>> > >>>>> But when I change to use a large file size to do the same stress > >>>>> test, using > >>>>> bonnie++ -d /run/media/mmcblk0p1/ -u 0:0 -s 4096 -r 2048 > >>>>> or > >>>>> bonnie++ -d /run/media/mmcblk0p1/ -u 0:0 -s 5600 > >>>>> > >>>>> I get the following dump message. According to the log, > >>>>> mmc_cqe_timed_out() was trigged. > >>>>> Seems mmc was blocked in somewhere. > >>>>> Then I try to debug this issue, and open MMC_DEBUG in config, do > >>>>> the same test, print the detail Command sending information on the > >>>>> console, but finally can't reproduce. > >>> > >>> mmc_cqe_timed_out() is a 60 second timeout provided by the block layer. > >>> Refer "blk_queue_rq_timeout(mq->queue, 60 * HZ)" in > mmc_init_queue(). > >>> 60s is quite a long time so I would first want to determine if the > >>> task was really queued that long. I would instrument some code into > >>> cqhci_request() to record the start time on struct mmc_request, and > >>> then print the time taken when there is a problem. > >>> > >> > >> Hi Adrian, > >> > >> According to your suggestion, I add the following code to print the time. > >> When issue happens, seems the request really pending for over 60s! > >> > >> done > >> Writing intelligently...[ 689.209548] mmc0: cqhci: timeout for tag 9 > >> [ 689.213658] the mrq all use 62123742 us [ 689.217487] mmc0: > >> cqhci: ============ CQHCI REGISTER DUMP =========== > >> [ 689.223927] mmc0: cqhci: Caps: 0x0000310a | Version: 0x00000510 > >> [ 689.230363] mmc0: cqhci: Config: 0x00001001 | Control: 0x00000000 > >> [ 689.236800] mmc0: cqhci: Int stat: 0x00000000 | Int enab: 0x00000006 > >> [ 689.243238] mmc0: cqhci: Int sig: 0x00000006 | Int Coal: 0x00000000 > >> [ 689.249675] mmc0: cqhci: TDL base: 0x90079000 | TDL up32: 0x00000000 > >> [ 689.256113] mmc0: cqhci: Doorbell: 0x1fffffff | TCN: 0x00000000 > >> [ 689.262550] mmc0: cqhci: Dev queue: 0x1fffefff | Dev Pend: 0x1fff7fff > >> [ 689.268988] mmc0: cqhci: Task clr: 0x00000000 | SSC1: 0x00011000 > >> [ 689.275425] mmc0: cqhci: SSC2: 0x00000001 | DCMD rsp: 0x00000800 > >> [ 689.281862] mmc0: cqhci: RED mask: 0xfdf9a080 | TERRI: 0x00000000 > >> [ 689.288300] mmc0: cqhci: Resp idx: 0x0000002f | Resp arg: > >> 0x00000900 [ 689.294737] mmc0: sdhci: ============ SDHCI REGISTER > >> DUMP =========== [ 689.301176] mmc0: sdhci: Sys addr: 0xb602f000 | > >> Version: 0x00000002 [ 689.307612] mmc0: sdhci: Blk size: > >> 0x00000200 | Blk cnt: 0x00000400 [ 689.314050] mmc0: sdhci: Argument: > 0x000f0400 | Trn mode: 0x00000023 > >> [ 689.320487] mmc0: sdhci: Present: 0x01fd858f | Host ctl: 0x00000030 > >> [ 689.326925] mmc0: sdhci: Power: 0x00000002 | Blk gap: 0x00000080 > >> [ 689.333362] mmc0: sdhci: Wake-up: 0x00000008 | Clock: 0x0000000f > >> [ 689.339800] mmc0: sdhci: Timeout: 0x0000008f | Int stat: 0x00000000 > >> [ 689.346237] mmc0: sdhci: Int enab: 0x107f4000 | Sig enab: > >> 0x107f4000 [ 689.352674] mmc0: sdhci: AC12 err: 0x00000000 | Slot int: > 0x00000502 > >> [ 689.359113] mmc0: sdhci: Caps: 0x07eb0000 | Caps_1: 0x8000b407 > >> [ 689.365549] mmc0: sdhci: Cmd: 0x00002c1a | Max curr: 0x00ffffff > >> [ 689.371987] mmc0: sdhci: Resp[0]: 0x00000900 | Resp[1]: 0xffffffff > >> [ 689.378424] mmc0: sdhci: Resp[2]: 0x328f5903 | Resp[3]: 0x00d02700 > >> [ 689.384861] mmc0: sdhci: Host ctl2: 0x00000008 [ 689.389302] > >> mmc0: sdhci: ADMA Err: 0x00000009 | ADMA Ptr: 0x9009a400 [ > >> 689.395737] mmc0: sdhci: > ============================================ > >> [ 689.402212] mmc0: running CQE recovery > > > > Tag 9 has been queued (bit set in Dev Pend) which means it is up to > > the eMMC to select it for execution. You should dump the times for > > the other mrq's to see how long they have been waiting and try to > > determine if anything is being processed. > > > > If the eMMC is just taking a really long time to process tasks we > > could extend the timeout, but it is hard to see how that is acceptable > > to a final product. At this point it looks like the eMMC may have a > > flaw in the way it selects tasks for execution. > > No, that is wrong sorry, the task is in the QSR (Dev queue) so it is the CQE that > has not selected it. The timeout tag is 9, for Dev queue: 0x1fffefff, bit 9 is 1, means task 9 already queue in eMMC. For Dev Pend: 0x1fff7fff, the bit 9 is also 1, which means CQE already send CMD44 and CMD45, but still not send CMD46/47. Seems our CQE pending tag 9 for over 60s! I will check with our IC guys to confirm the hardware mechanism. > -- > 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 ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��i��)�� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
