On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 14:43, Christian Löhle <CLoehle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I have benchmarked the FUA/Cache behavior a bit.
> I don't have an actual filesystem benchmark that does what I wanted and is easy to port to the target so I used:
>
> # call with
> # for loop in {1..3}; do sudo dd if=/dev/urandom bs=1M of=/dev/mmcblk2; done; for loop in {1..5}; do time ./filesystembenchmark.sh; umount /mnt; done
> mkfs.ext4 -F /dev/mmcblk2
> mount /dev/mmcblk2 /mnt
> for i in {1..3}
> do
> cp -r linux-6.2.2 /mnt/$i
> done
> for i in {1..3}
> do
> rm -r /mnt/$i
> done
> for i in {1..3}
> do
> cp -r linux-6.2.2 /mnt/$i
> done
>
>
> I found a couple of DUTs that I can link, I also tested one industrial card.
>
> DUT1: blue PCB Foresee eMMC
> https://pine64.com/product/32gb-emmc-module/
> DUT2: green PCB SiliconGo eMMC
> Couldn't find that one online anymore unfortunately
> DUT3: orange hardkernel PCB 8GB
> https://www.hardkernel.com/shop/8gb-emmc-module-c2-android/
> DUT4: orange hardkernel PCB white dot
> https://rlx.sk/en/odroid/3198-16gb-emmc-50-module-xu3-android-for-odroid-xu3.html
> DUT5: Industrial card
Thanks a lot for helping out with testing! Much appreciated!
>
>
> The test issued 461 DO_REL_WR during one of the iterations for DUT5
>
> DUT1:
> Cache, no FUA:
> 13:04.49
> 13:13.82
> 13:30.59
> 13:28:13
> 13:20:64
> FUA:
> 13:30.32
> 13:36.26
> 13:10.86
> 13:32.52
> 13:48.59
>
> DUT2:
> FUA:
> 8:11.24
> 7:47.73
> 7:48.00
> 7:48.18
> 7:47.38
> Cache, no FUA:
> 8:10.30
> 7:48.97
> 7:48.47
> 7:47.93
> 7:44.18
>
> DUT3:
> Cache, no FUA:
> 7:02.82
> 6:58.94
> 7:03.20
> 7:00.27
> 7:00.88
> FUA:
> 7:05.43
> 7:03.44
> 7:04.82
> 7:03.26
> 7:04.74
>
> DUT4:
> FUA:
> 7:23.92
> 7:20.15
> 7:20.52
> 7:19.10
> 7:20.71
> Cache, no FUA:
> 7:20.23
> 7:20.48
> 7:19.94
> 7:18.90
> 7:19.88
Without going into the details of the above, it seems like for DUT1,
DUT2, DUT3 and DUT4 there a good reasons to why we should move forward
with $subject patch.
Do you agree?
>
> Cache, no FUA:
> 7:19.36
> 7:02.11
> 7:01.53
> 7:01.35
> 7:00.37
> Cache, no FUA CQE:
> 7:17.55
> 7:00.73
> 6:59.25
> 6:58.44
> 6:58.60
> FUA:
> 7:15.10
> 6:58.99
> 6:58.94
> 6:59.17
> 6:60.00
> FUA CQE:
> 7:11.03
> 6:58.04
> 6:56.89
> 6:56.43
> 6:56:28
>
> If anyone has any comments or disagrees with the benchmark, or has a specific eMMC to test, let me know.
If I understand correctly, for DUT5, it seems like using FUA may be
slightly better than just cache-flushing, right?
For CQE, it seems like FUA could be slightly even better, at least for
DUT5. Do you know if REQ_OP_FLUSH translates into MMC_ISSUE_DCMD or
MMC_ISSUE_SYNC for your case? See mmc_cqe_issue_type().
When it comes to CQE, maybe Adrian have some additional thoughts
around this? Perhaps we should keep using REQ_FUA, if we have CQE?
Kind regards
Uffe
