Re: [PATCH 0/8] sdhci: Move real work out of an atomic context

2010-09-09 Thread Anton Vorontsov
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 03:28:34AM +0100, Chris Ball wrote: [...] > [7.372843] [] __might_sleep+0xd9/0xe0 > [7.387864] [] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x2a > [7.402576] [] sdhci_led_control+0x1a/0x41 > [7.417727] [] led_trigger_event+0x42/0x5c led_trigger_even grabs a readlock. :-( > [

Re: [PATCH 0/8] sdhci: Move real work out of an atomic context

2010-09-08 Thread Chris Ball
Hi, On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 10:37:41PM +0100, Chris Ball wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 03:38:13PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > I noticed no throughput drop neither with PIO transfers nor > > > with DMA (tested on MPC8569E CPU), while latencies should be > > > greatly improv

Re: [PATCH 0/8] sdhci: Move real work out of an atomic context

2010-09-08 Thread Chris Ball
Hi Anton, On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 01:57:50AM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > Thanks! > > Would be also great if you could point out which patch causes > most of the performance drop (if any)? > > Albert, if you could find time, can you also "bisect" the > patchset? I wouldn't want to buy Nintend

Re: [PATCH 0/8] sdhci: Move real work out of an atomic context

2010-09-08 Thread Chris Ball
Hi Andrew, On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 03:38:13PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > I noticed no throughput drop neither with PIO transfers nor > > with DMA (tested on MPC8569E CPU), while latencies should be > > greatly improved. > > This patchset isn't causing any problems yet, but may do so in the >

Re: [PATCH 0/8] sdhci: Move real work out of an atomic context

2010-09-08 Thread Anton Vorontsov
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 11:05:48PM +0100, Chris Ball wrote: > Hi Anton, > > On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 01:57:50AM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > > Thanks! > > > > Would be also great if you could point out which patch causes > > most of the performance drop (if any)? > > > > Albert, if you could f

Re: [PATCH 0/8] sdhci: Move real work out of an atomic context

2010-09-08 Thread Anton Vorontsov
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 10:37:41PM +0100, Chris Ball wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 03:38:13PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > I noticed no throughput drop neither with PIO transfers nor > > > with DMA (tested on MPC8569E CPU), while latencies should be > > > greatly improved. >

Re: [PATCH 0/8] sdhci: Move real work out of an atomic context

2010-09-07 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:07:28 +0400 Anton Vorontsov wrote: > Hi all, > > Currently the sdhci driver does everything in the atomic context. > And what is worse, PIO transfers are made from the IRQ handler. > > This causes huge latencies (up to 120 ms). On some P2020 SOCs, > DMA and card detection

Re: [PATCH 0/8] sdhci: Move real work out of an atomic context

2010-07-21 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:07:28 +0400 Anton Vorontsov wrote: > Hi all, > > Currently the sdhci driver does everything in the atomic context. > And what is worse, PIO transfers are made from the IRQ handler. > > This causes huge latencies (up to 120 ms). On some P2020 SOCs, > DMA and card detection

Re: [PATCH 0/8] sdhci: Move real work out of an atomic context

2010-07-15 Thread Matt Fleming
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:07:28 +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > Hi all, > > Currently the sdhci driver does everything in the atomic context. > And what is worse, PIO transfers are made from the IRQ handler. > > This causes huge latencies (up to 120 ms). On some P2020 SOCs, > DMA and card detectio