On 11/18/22 07:13, Gary Bisson wrote:
> This reverts commit 62649165cb02ab95b57360bb362886935f524f26.
>
> The patch decreased the write performance quite a bit.
> Here is an example on an i.MX 8M Quad platform.
> - Before the revert:
> Sending sparse 'vendor' 1/2 (516436 KB) OKAY [ 5.113s]
> Writing 'vendor' OKAY [128.335s]
> Sending sparse 'vendor' 2/2 (76100 KB) OKAY [ 0.802s]
> Writing 'vendor' OKAY [ 27.902s]
> - After the revert:
> Sending sparse 'vendor' 1/2 (516436 KB) OKAY [ 5.310s]
> Writing 'vendor' OKAY [ 18.041s]
> Sending sparse 'vendor' 2/2 (76100 KB) OKAY [ 1.244s]
> Writing 'vendor' OKAY [ 2.663s]
>
> Considering that the patch only moves buffer around to avoid a warning
> message about misaligned buffers, let's keep the best performances.
So what is the point of this warning?
--Sean
> Signed-off-by: Gary Bisson <gary.bis...@boundarydevices.com>
> Signed-off-by: Troy Kisky <troy.ki...@boundarydevices.com>
> ---
> lib/image-sparse.c | 69 ++++++----------------------------------------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/image-sparse.c b/lib/image-sparse.c
> index 5ec0f94ab3e..d80fdbbf58e 100644
> --- a/lib/image-sparse.c
> +++ b/lib/image-sparse.c
> @@ -46,66 +46,9 @@
> #include <asm/cache.h>
>
> #include <linux/math64.h>
> -#include <linux/err.h>
>
> static void default_log(const char *ignored, char *response) {}
>
> -static lbaint_t write_sparse_chunk_raw(struct sparse_storage *info,
> - lbaint_t blk, lbaint_t blkcnt,
> - void *data,
> - char *response)
> -{
> - lbaint_t n = blkcnt, write_blks, blks = 0, aligned_buf_blks = 100;
> - uint32_t *aligned_buf = NULL;
> -
> - if (CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(SYS_DCACHE_OFF)) {
> - write_blks = info->write(info, blk, n, data);
> - if (write_blks < n)
> - goto write_fail;
> -
> - return write_blks;
> - }
> -
> - aligned_buf = memalign(ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN, info->blksz *
> aligned_buf_blks);
> - if (!aligned_buf) {
> - info->mssg("Malloc failed for: CHUNK_TYPE_RAW", response);
> - return -ENOMEM;
> - }
> -
> - while (blkcnt > 0) {
> - n = min(aligned_buf_blks, blkcnt);
> - memcpy(aligned_buf, data, n * info->blksz);
> -
> - /* write_blks might be > n due to NAND bad-blocks */
> - write_blks = info->write(info, blk + blks, n, aligned_buf);
> - if (write_blks < n) {
> - free(aligned_buf);
> - goto write_fail;
> - }
> -
> - blks += write_blks;
> - data += n * info->blksz;
> - blkcnt -= n;
> - }
> -
> - free(aligned_buf);
> - return blks;
> -
> -write_fail:
> - if (IS_ERR_VALUE(write_blks)) {
> - printf("%s: Write failed, block #" LBAFU " [" LBAFU "]
> (%lld)\n",
> - __func__, blk + blks, n, (long long)write_blks);
> - info->mssg("flash write failure", response);
> - return write_blks;
> - }
> -
> - /* write_blks < n */
> - printf("%s: Write failed, block #" LBAFU " [" LBAFU "]\n",
> - __func__, blk + blks, n);
> - info->mssg("flash write failure(incomplete)", response);
> - return -1;
> -}
> -
> int write_sparse_image(struct sparse_storage *info,
> const char *part_name, void *data, char *response)
> {
> @@ -209,11 +152,15 @@ int write_sparse_image(struct sparse_storage *info,
> return -1;
> }
>
> - blks = write_sparse_chunk_raw(info, blk, blkcnt,
> - data, response);
> - if (blks < 0)
> + blks = info->write(info, blk, blkcnt, data);
> + /* blks might be > blkcnt (eg. NAND bad-blocks) */
> + if (blks < blkcnt) {
> + printf("%s: %s" LBAFU " [" LBAFU "]\n",
> + __func__, "Write failed, block #",
> + blk, blks);
> + info->mssg("flash write failure", response);
> return -1;
> -
> + }
> blk += blks;
> bytes_written += ((u64)blkcnt) * info->blksz;
> total_blocks += chunk_header->chunk_sz;
