On 2/04/19 10:59 AM, Faiz Abbas wrote: > Hi Adrian, > > On 26/03/19 1:03 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote: >> On 18/03/19 11:33 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> + Arnd, Grygorii >>> >>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 20:17, Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@xxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> sdhci.c has two bottom halves implemented. A threaded_irq for handling >>>> card insert/remove operations and a tasklet for finishing mmc requests. >>>> With the addition of external dma support, dmaengine APIs need to >>>> terminate in non-atomic context before unmapping the dma buffers. >>>> >>>> To facilitate this, remove the finish_tasklet and move the call of >>>> sdhci_request_done() to the threaded_irq() callback. Also move the >>>> interrupt result variable to sdhci_host so it can be populated from >>>> anywhere inside the sdhci_irq handler. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@xxxxxx> >>> >>> Adrian, I think it makes sense to apply this patch, even if there is >>> very minor negative impact throughput wise. >>> >>> To me, it doesn't seems like MMC/SD/SDIO has good justification for >>> using tasklets, besides from the legacy point of view, of course. >>> Instead, I think we should try to move all mmc hosts into using >>> threaded IRQs. >>> >>> So, what do you think? Can you overlook the throughput drop and >>> instead we can try to recover this on top with other optimizations? >> >> I tend to favour good results as expressed here: >> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/22/360 >> >> So I want to do optimization first. >> >> But performance is not the only problem with the patch. Give me a few >> days and I will see what I can come up with. >> > > Gentle ping on this. Working on it :-)
