From owner-freebsd-usb@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 31 19:21:43 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-usb@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-usb@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09C2916A41F; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:21:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E7ED43D48; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:21:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.11] (junior.samsco.home [192.168.254.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j7VJZBtD008437; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:35:12 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <43160334.5000100@samsco.org> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:21:24 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050615 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ian Dowse References: <200508302009.aa99975@nowhere.iedowse.com> In-Reply-To: <200508302009.aa99975@nowhere.iedowse.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, Eugene Grosbein , freebsd-usb@freebsd.org, "Eygene A. Ryabinkin" Subject: Re: Low umass performance with USB 2.0 ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-usb@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD support for USB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:21:43 -0000 Ian Dowse wrote: > In message <20050830125031.GA775@rea.mbslab.kiae.ru>, "Eygene A. Ryabinkin" wri > tes: > >>>What is filesystem has your USB drive? >> >>The one I was extensively testing has FAT, but I've checked the UFS2 -- >>just a bit better -- 1.8 Mb/second. But you're right -- no wdrains at all. >> >>>FreeBSD 4.x had very low performance with FAT filesystem, >>>writing process spent lots of time in the wdrain state too. >> >>Yes, it has. But here the same flash drive gives different results for >>ehci and uhci devices, and the total speed of echi is lower due to wdrains: >>300 Kb/sec versus 500 Kb/sec. And I sometimes write my data to the Windows >>partition with FAT to my home HDD -- it has no wdrains. At least, I've not >>noticed them. For flash I can. > > > The patch in from the email below may help with the wdrain state - > can you see if it makes any difference? Is the problem that the interrupt gets fired but not all of the status information has made it's way back to host memory when the driver gets there? Would it make a difference to instead read back the EHCI_USBSTS register after writing to it in ehci_intr1? That way all transactions down to the controller would be guaranteed to be flushed before you continue on. I wonder if this is a remnant of the famous problems with VIA chipsets doing bad things under medium-to-high PCI contention. I don't see any obvious workarounds for this in the Linux EHCI code, so I wonder if it's a case of them not encountering it, or doing something different that avoids the problem. Scott