On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 at 17:33, Bean Huo <beanhuo@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Ulf,
>
> thanks for your comments, I didn't quite get your points:
>
> On Tue, 2023-10-10 at 16:20 +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > > @@ -2381,8 +2381,11 @@ enum mmc_issued mmc_blk_mq_issue_rq(struct
> > > mmc_queue *mq, struct request *req)
> > > }
> > > ret = mmc_blk_cqe_issue_flush(mq, req);
> > > break;
> > > - case REQ_OP_READ:
> > > case REQ_OP_WRITE:
> > > + if (mmc_card_broken_cache_flush(card) &&
> > > !card->written_flag)
> >
> > It looks superfluous to me to check mmc_card_broken_cache_flush() and
> > !card->written_flag. Just set the card->written_flag unconditionally.
>
> what did you mean "Just set the card->written_flag unconditionally."?
> This means I just need to check card->written_flag and set card-
> >written_flag to true and false in the case
> MMC_QUIRK_BROKEN_CACHE_FLUSH? or don't need to call
> mmc_card_broken_cache_flush()?
I mean skip the checks above and just do the assignment below.
>
> >
> > > + card->written_flag = true;
> > > + fallthrough;
> > > + case REQ_OP_READ:
> > > if (host->cqe_enabled)
> > > ret = mmc_blk_cqe_issue_rw_rq(mq,
> > > req);
> > > else
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/card.h b/drivers/mmc/core/card.h
> > > index 4edf9057fa79..b7754a1b8d97 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mmc/core/card.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/card.h
> > > @@ -280,4 +280,8 @@ static inline int
> > > mmc_card_broken_sd_cache(const struct mmc_card *c)
> > > return c->quirks & MMC_QUIRK_BROKEN_SD_CACHE;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static inline int mmc_card_broken_cache_flush(const struct
> > > mmc_card *c)
> > > +{
> > > + return c->quirks & MMC_QUIRK_BROKEN_CACHE_FLUSH;
> > > +}
> > > #endif
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c
> > > index 89cd48fcec79..47896c32086e 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c
> > > @@ -1929,6 +1929,8 @@ static int mmc_init_card(struct mmc_host
> > > *host, u32 ocr,
> > > if (!oldcard)
> > > host->card = card;
> > >
> > > + card->written_flag = false;
> > > +
> >
> > How about doing this after a successful flush operation instead? In
> > other words in _mmc_flush_cache().
>
> Here initializes flag and the patch is intenting to eliminate the cache
> flush command before writing. what do you mean adding in
> mmc_flush_cache()?
mmc_init_card() is called while initializing and re-initializing the
card. So, it certainly works to reset the flag from here.
However, _mmc_flush_cache() is called before powering off the card,
which then would work similarly to the above, but also gets called for
REQ_OP_FLUSH. Wouldn't that mean that we may be able to skip some
unnecessary/troublesome cache flush requests if we would reset the
flag from mmc_flush_cache(), rather than from mmc_init_card()?
Kind regards
Uffe
