On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 at 04:05, Wenchao Chen <wenchao.chen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Increasing hsq_depth improves random write performance.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wenchao Chen <wenchao.chen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/mmc/host/mmc_hsq.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/mmc/host/mmc_hsq.h | 5 +++++
> 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mmc_hsq.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mmc_hsq.c
> index 8556cacb21a1..0984c39108ba 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/mmc_hsq.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mmc_hsq.c
> @@ -21,6 +21,31 @@ static void mmc_hsq_retry_handler(struct work_struct *work)
> mmc->ops->request(mmc, hsq->mrq);
> }
>
> +static void mmc_hsq_modify_threshold(struct mmc_hsq *hsq)
> +{
> + struct mmc_host *mmc = hsq->mmc;
> + struct mmc_request *mrq;
> + struct hsq_slot *slot;
> + int need_change = 0;
Rather than using a variable to keep track of this, why not just do
the below here?
mmc->hsq_depth = HSQ_NORMAL_DEPTH;
> + int tag;
> +
> + for (tag = 0; tag < HSQ_NUM_SLOTS; tag++) {
> + slot = &hsq->slot[tag];
> + mrq = slot->mrq;
> + if (mrq && mrq->data &&
> + (mrq->data->blksz * mrq->data->blocks == 4096) &&
> + (mrq->data->flags & MMC_DATA_WRITE))
> + need_change++;
And following above, then we can do the below here:
mmc->hsq_depth = HSQ_PERFORMANCE_DEPTH;
break;
That should simplify and make this more efficient too, right?
> + else
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + if (need_change > 1)
> + mmc->hsq_depth = HSQ_PERFORMANCE_DEPTH;
> + else
> + mmc->hsq_depth = HSQ_NORMAL_DEPTH;
> +}
> +
[...]
Kind regards
Uffe
