To: me...@codeaurora.org
>> Cc: Jaehoon Chung; linux-...@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-...@vger.kernel.org;
>> open list
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mmc: core: Add support for idle time BKOPS
>>
>> On 12 December 2012 13:32, wrote:
>>> Hi Ulf,
>>>
>>>
Cc: Jaehoon Chung; linux-...@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-...@vger.kernel.org;
> open list
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mmc: core: Add support for idle time BKOPS
>
> On 12 December 2012 13:32, wrote:
>> Hi Ulf,
>>
>> Sorry for the late response.
>> See my reply bel
...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Ulf Hansson
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:18 PM
To: me...@codeaurora.org
Cc: Jaehoon Chung; linux-...@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-...@vger.kernel.org;
open list
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mmc: core: Add support for idle time BKOPS
On 12 December 2012 13:32, wrote:
> Hi
On 12 December 2012 13:32, wrote:
> Hi Ulf,
>
> Sorry for the late response.
> See my reply below.
>
> Thanks,
> Maya
>
> On Thu, December 6, 2012 2:18 am, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> Hi Maya,
>>
>> On 4 December 2012 22:17, wrote:
>>> Hi Ulf,
>>>
>>> Let me try to better explain:
>>> The idea behind
Hi Ulf,
Sorry for the late response.
See my reply below.
Thanks,
Maya
On Thu, December 6, 2012 2:18 am, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> Hi Maya,
>
> On 4 December 2012 22:17, wrote:
>> Hi Ulf,
>>
>> Let me try to better explain:
>> The idea behind the periodic BKOPS is to check the card's need for BKOPS
Hi Maya,
On 4 December 2012 22:17, wrote:
> Hi Ulf,
>
> Let me try to better explain:
> The idea behind the periodic BKOPS is to check the card's need for BKOPS
> periodically in order to prevent an urgent BKOPS need by the card.
> In order to actually manage to prevent the urgent BKOPS need, th
Hi Ulf,
Let me try to better explain:
The idea behind the periodic BKOPS is to check the card's need for BKOPS
periodically in order to prevent an urgent BKOPS need by the card.
In order to actually manage to prevent the urgent BKOPS need, the host
should give the card enough time to perform the B
On 3 December 2012 10:49, wrote:
> Hi Jaehoon,
>
> With this patch we don't expect to see any degradation. Thanks for
> verifying that.
> The test plan would be to run the lmdd and iozone benchmarks with this
> patch and verify that the performance is not degraded.
> I verified it with the msm_sd
Hi Jaehoon,
With this patch we don't expect to see any degradation. Thanks for
verifying that.
The test plan would be to run the lmdd and iozone benchmarks with this
patch and verify that the performance is not degraded.
I verified it with the msm_sdcc controller.
Chris - We do expect it to influ
Hi Maya,
Thank you a lot for working idle time BKOPS.
I tested with this patch. It's working fine.(Suspend/resume is also working
well.)
Test controller is sdhci controller.
When i tested the performance with iozone, i didn't find that performance is
decreased.
Well, as Chris is mentioned, do
Hi Maya,
On Sun, Nov 25 2012, me...@codeaurora.org wrote:
> I managed to find a solution in which there is no need to check the number
> of written / discarded sectors as a trigger for BKOPS status check.
> I moved the code that checks the need to stop the BKOPS to mmc/block code,
> in which there
Hi Chris,
I managed to find a solution in which there is no need to check the number
of written / discarded sectors as a trigger for BKOPS status check.
I moved the code that checks the need to stop the BKOPS to mmc/block code,
in which there is no need for additional claim_host and remove_host
op
Devices have various maintenance operations need to perform internally.
In order to reduce latencies during time critical operations like read
and write, it is better to execute maintenance operations in other
times - when the host is not being serviced. Such operations are called
Background operat
13 matches
Mail list logo
