On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 11:43:13AM +0200, Mattijs Korpershoek wrote: > On lun., juin 19, 2023 at 10:21, Mattijs Korpershoek > <mkorpersh...@baylibre.com> wrote: > > > Hi Qianfan, > > > > Thank you for your review. > > > > On lun., juin 19, 2023 at 14:19, qianfan <qianfangui...@163.com> wrote: > > > >> 在 2023/6/16 21:26, Mattijs Korpershoek 写道: > >>> Commit 62649165cb02 ("lib: sparse: Make CHUNK_TYPE_RAW buffer aligned") > >>> fixed cache alignment for systems with a D-CACHE. > >>> > >>> However it introduced some performance regressions [1] on system > >>> flashing huge images, such as Android. > >>> > >>> On AM62x SK EVM, we also observe such performance penalty: > >>> Sending sparse 'super' 1/2 (768793 KB) OKAY [ 23.954s] > >>> Writing 'super' OKAY [ 75.926s] > >>> Sending sparse 'super' 2/2 (629819 KB) OKAY [ 19.641s] > >>> Writing 'super' OKAY [ 62.849s] > >>> Finished. Total time: 182.474s > >>> > >>> The reason for this is that we use an arbitrary small buffer > >>> (info->blksz * 100) for transferring. > >>> > >>> Fix it by using a bigger buffer (info->blksz * blkcnt) as suggested in > >>> the original's patch review [2]. > >>> > >>> With this patch, performance impact is mitigated: > >>> Sending sparse 'super' 1/2 (768793 KB) OKAY [ 24.006s] > >>> Writing 'super' OKAY [ 15.920s] > >>> Sending sparse 'super' 2/2 (629819 KB) OKAY [ 19.651s] > >>> Writing 'super' OKAY [ 14.665s] > >>> Finished. Total time: 74.346s > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221118121323.4009193-1-gary.bis...@boundarydevices.com > >>> [2] > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/all/43e4c17c-4483-ec8e-f843-9b4c5569b...@seco.com/ > >>> > >>> Fixes: 62649165cb02 ("lib: sparse: Make CHUNK_TYPE_RAW buffer aligned") > >>> Signed-off-by: Mattijs Korpershoek <mkorpersh...@baylibre.com> > >>> --- > >>> lib/image-sparse.c | 2 +- > >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/lib/image-sparse.c b/lib/image-sparse.c > >>> index 5ec0f94ab3eb..25aed0604192 100644 > >>> --- a/lib/image-sparse.c > >>> +++ b/lib/image-sparse.c > >>> @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ static lbaint_t write_sparse_chunk_raw(struct > >>> sparse_storage *info, > >>> void *data, > >>> char *response) > >>> { > >>> - lbaint_t n = blkcnt, write_blks, blks = 0, aligned_buf_blks = 100; > >>> + lbaint_t n = blkcnt, write_blks, blks = 0, aligned_buf_blks = blkcnt; > >> Hi: > >> > >> It's a good point that this code report the performance was affected by > >> write large small > >> mmc blks, not memory copy. > > > > I believe memory copy also affects performance, but in my case, > > it has less impact than small mmc blks. > > > > With 62649165cb02 reverted: > > Sending sparse 'super' 1/2 (768793 KB) OKAY [ 23.947s] > > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 12.983s] > > Sending sparse 'super' 2/2 (629819 KB) OKAY [ 19.600s] > > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 12.796s] > > Finished. Total time: 69.430s > > > > With aligned_buf_blks = blkcnt: > > Sending sparse 'super' 1/2 (768793 KB) OKAY [ 24.072s] > > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 16.177s] > > Sending sparse 'super' 2/2 (629819 KB) OKAY [ 19.681s] > > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 14.845s] > > Finished. Total time: 74.919s > > > >> > >> And I can not make sure whether memalign can always alloc such huge > >> memory when we change the > >> aligned_buf_blks to blkcnt. > > > > Could you clarify the concern here? I've dumped blkcnt for my board > > (AM62x SK EVK) and the biggest blkcnt I found was: 131072 > > > > With info->blksz = 512, this gives me: 512 * 131072 = 67108864 > > > > Which is a memalign (memory alloc) of 64MB. Is 64MB really that big? (I > > don't realize it's that much) > > > >> > >> Could you please set aligned_buf_blks to FASTBOOT_MAX_BLK_WRITE(16384) > >> and test again? > > > > With aligned_buf_blks = FASTBOOT_MAX_BLK_WRITE(16384): > > Sending sparse 'super' 1/2 (768793 KB) OKAY [ 23.912s] > > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 15.780s] > > Sending sparse 'super' 2/2 (629819 KB) OKAY [ 19.581s] > > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 17.192s] > > Finished. Total time: 76.569s > > > > So using FASTBOOT_MAX_BLK_WRITE is slightly worse than using blkcnt. > > But allocations (for blksz = 512) are smaller: 8MB instead of 64MB in my > > example. > > > > I can spin up a v2 with FASTBOOT_MAX_BLK_WRITE but i'm waiting a little > > more feedback before doing so. > > Hi Marek, Tom, > > What's your take on this ? Can we keep blkcnt or should I respin using > FASTBOOT_MAX_BLK_WRITE ? > > I have also tested this on VIM3, on > U-Boot 2023.07-rc6-00003-g923de765ee1a: > > Sending sparse 'super' 1/13 (114684 KB) OKAY [ 5.442s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 5.791s] > Sending sparse 'super' 2/13 (114684 KB) OKAY [ 5.706s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 5.607s] > Sending sparse 'super' 3/13 (114684 KB) OKAY [ 5.468s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 5.835s] > Sending sparse 'super' 4/13 (114684 KB) OKAY [ 5.703s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 5.618s] > Sending sparse 'super' 5/13 (114684 KB) OKAY [ 6.176s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 5.421s] > Sending sparse 'super' 6/13 (104176 KB) OKAY [ 5.204s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 5.199s] > Sending sparse 'super' 7/13 (108856 KB) OKAY [ 5.456s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 5.290s] > Sending sparse 'super' 8/13 (114684 KB) OKAY [ 6.122s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 5.838s] > Sending sparse 'super' 9/13 (114684 KB) OKAY [ 5.951s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 5.857s] > Sending sparse 'super' 10/13 (100980 KB) OKAY [ 4.902s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 4.749s] > Sending sparse 'super' 11/13 (114681 KB) OKAY [ 6.041s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 5.779s] > Sending sparse 'super' 12/13 (107212 KB) OKAY [ 5.174s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 6.587s] > Sending sparse 'super' 13/13 (71496 KB) OKAY [ 3.717s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 3.744s] > Finished. Total time: 142.578s > > With this patch: > Sending sparse 'super' 1/13 (114684 KB) OKAY [ 7.149s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 1.639s] > Sending sparse 'super' 2/13 (114684 KB) OKAY [ 6.993s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 1.713s] > Sending sparse 'super' 3/13 (114684 KB) OKAY [ 7.029s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 1.107s] > Sending sparse 'super' 4/13 (114684 KB) OKAY [ 7.027s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 0.162s] > Sending sparse 'super' 5/13 (114684 KB) OKAY [ 6.930s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 1.643s] > Sending sparse 'super' 6/13 (104176 KB) OKAY [ 6.253s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 2.348s] > Sending sparse 'super' 7/13 (108856 KB) OKAY [ 6.346s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 0.723s] > Sending sparse 'super' 8/13 (114684 KB) OKAY [ 6.715s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 2.848s] > Sending sparse 'super' 9/13 (114684 KB) OKAY [ 6.888s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 1.928s] > Sending sparse 'super' 10/13 (100980 KB) OKAY [ 5.979s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 1.178s] > Sending sparse 'super' 11/13 (114681 KB) OKAY [ 6.822s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 2.652s] > Sending sparse 'super' 12/13 (107212 KB) OKAY [ 6.414s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 5.109s] > Sending sparse 'super' 13/13 (71496 KB) OKAY [ 4.238s] > Writing 'super' OKAY [ 0.252s] > Finished. Total time: 108.151s > > It's probably too late for v2023.07 to pick this up but can we consider > taking it for next?
I was waiting for a v2, and yes, it's too late for v2023.07. Sorry for not being clear enough. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature