GSoC'18 proposal - Porting SDIO driver and benchmarking

[Udit agarwal]

Hi,
We can't really merge the back-ported code with the current libbsd version
to avoid version inconsistency.
Thus, i am proposing to prepare all the necessary changes(patches), which
can be applied once the libbsd receives it's next update.


On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org> wrote:

> I have a question about the high-level goal of this project. Is it to
> produce a back-ported version of the stack to our current libbsd, or
> is to prepare the changes necessary to apply to libbsd when it gets
> updated to a newer FreeBSD containing the sdio stack, or both?
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Udit agarwal <dev.madaari at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 8:48 PM, Christian Mauderer <list at c-mauderer.de>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 18.03.2018 um 14:22 schrieb Udit agarwal:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> > Here's the link to my proposal:
> >> >
> >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/15Ut9FLAV3Y0Up1Qn02ys6KAb2QhtR
> eF_P-wNR861NMo/edit?usp=sharing
> >> >
> >> > Please have a look, and comment where ever needed.
> >> > I tried my best to make time-line as realistic as possible. Please
> feel
> >> > free to comment in case of any unbalance or overlooked task.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Udit agarwal
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hello Udit,
> >>
> >> some (not too well sorted) notes:
> >>
> >> 1. One point I'm missing is the target that you produce a set of patches
> >> that can be easily merged as soon as the libbsd receives it's next
> >> update. Otherwise the only result from that project would be the
> >> comparison document.
> >>
> > That's a really good idea! I have now included that in my proposal,
> please
> > have a look.
> >>
> >>
> >> 2. I'm not sure whether the point
> >>
> >>   "Backport the SDIO driver residing within the mmccam stack to FreeBSD
> >> version being used by libbsd"
> >>
> >> is a good idea. It sounds like you want to do the backport on FreeBSD.
> >> You most likely would have a lot of work with that without any really
> >> useful results. It would be better to analyse whether some other
> >> subsystems might have an influence on the performance measurement (which
> >> I would expect to be quite few) and then do the backport directly on
> >> RTEMS libbsd.
> >>
> > Noted. I have corrected this. Moreover, i am studying several files
> > changed/modified during
> > the mmccam commit and as of now, i didn't  came across any such Non-RTEMS
> > dependency
> > that might affect systems performance. I have a query here, in
> RTEMS-libbsd
> > cam directory, there are some files
> > like cam.h and cam_ccb.h belonging to different FreeBSD head versions.
> Is it
> > because, since there has been no change in the file, so its not updated?
> >>
> >>
> >> 3. It seems that you have split up the test bench over all three phases.
> >> It might would be more efficient to search a test bench and get it
> >> running on FreeBSD as well as on RTEMS quite early. There should be no
> >> difference whether it runs on the old SD-card driver, the SDIO one or
> >> some USB stick. It should basically work with with any block device.
> >>
> >> If you start to port it to RTEMS in phase 3 and then find out that it
> >> doesn't work like expected, you will have to restart with searching some
> >> other test bench. This would mean that you can throw away all results of
> >> the workbench that you collected in between.
> >>
> > I have corrected this. So, now the first phase, I'll be porting SDIO
> driver,
> > and in the second and third phase, I'll focus on the benchmarking task.
> > Hopefully, now we have ample time to fallback and search for another
> > benchmarks in case the first one didn't work expectedly.
> >>
> >>
> >> 4. I'm not quite sure whether the amount of work would really fill all
> >> three phases. Maybe you should plan an extended goal. With that topic
> >> that could for example be a benchmark for some other drivers (like USB
> >> storage).
> >>
> > Done.
> >>
> >>
> >> 5. Currently your results are a document and a set of patches that
> >> (hopefully) can be integrated into libbsd in the future. I think that if
> >> you find some good standard performance test for block devices, porting
> >> that could be another core result that can be integrated directly and
> >> not only after a libbsd upgrade.
> >>
> > I came across several popular, multipurpose I/O benchmarks like IOZone
> and
> > IOrate with compatible license(1,2). Since, these are FreeBSD compatible
> > probably they will work. Still, I have added 'Searching and testing
> > benchmarks on FreeBSD' as one of my goal.
> >>
> >> With kind regards
> >>
> >> Christian Mauderer
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Udit agarwal
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > devel mailing list
> > devel at rtems.org
> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20180320/a961c685/attachment-0002.html>