All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: weili@codeaurora.org
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vatsa@codeaurora.org, sonic@codeaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver-core: remove lock for platform devices during probe
Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 10:18:25 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <128e7cfa7d551607e195c4e087572594@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170425113629.GB7191@kroah.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2947 bytes --]

Hi Greg K-H,

On 2017-04-25 19:36, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 04:43:33PM +0800, weili@codeaurora.org wrote:
>> Hi Greg K-H,
>> 
>> On 2017-04-24 16:46, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> 
>> > And does it really reduce boot time? What are the numbers?
>>   Yes, it really reduce boot time. After making most time-consuming 
>> platform
>> driver using async probe
>>   and also applying this patch, we see the driver run in parallel with
>> others and saving 140ms.
> 
> And why wasn't that information in the initial commit message?
> 
> And how much of a % is 140ms?  Why is a single driver taking that long
> to initialize itself?
The kernel took 1.72 seconds to boot to run the first init program. 
140ms is 8% improvement.
140ms is long for a single driver initialize. We are in discussion with 
the driver owner
about optimization.

>> > What does the boot graph look like when you run with and without this
>> > patch?
>>   Without the patch, the boot graph is like this:
>>     CPU0: platform driver1 probe -> lock parent -> do probe staff -> 
>> unlock
>> parent -> probe finish
>>     CPU1: platform driver2 probe ->                wait for lock on 
>> parent
>> -> lock parent -> do probe -> unlock parent -> probe finish
>> 
>>   With the patch, the boot graph is like this:
>>     CPU0: platform driver1 probe -> do probe staff -> probe finish
>>     CPU1: platform drvier2 probe -> do probe staff -> probe finish
> 
> No, I mean the boot graph in pretty .svg format that the kernel can
> output, with times and processes and everything.  Look in the tools
> directory for more information, it will give you the exact timing for
> your change before and after and show you exactly where you are taking
> long periods of time.
> 
> You did use that, or something else to measure this somehow, right?
> 
The boot graph is in the attachment. The function msm_sharedmem_init 
took
long time because it is blocked by another async probe driver. After
applying the patch, msm_sharedmem_init is no longer blocked.

>> > Why is the platform bus so "special" to warrant this?  Should we perhaps
>> > make this
>> > an option for any bus to enable/disable?
>>   The lock on parent was first introduced by USB guys in following 
>> commit
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/commit/drivers/base/dd.c?id=bf74ad5bc41727d5f2f1c6bedb2c1fac394de731
>>   This may be useful for real bus devices such as USB and they think
>> overhead of acquiring a lock is not large.
>>   But since platfrom bus is virtual, the lock is not necessary. 
>> Removing it
>> for platform devices will make
>>   driver running in parallel and benefit boot time.
> 
> I know all about USB here :)
> 
> You did not answer my questions :(
> 
Do you suggest that we add some varible like "async_probe" in struct 
bus_type and
then check the varible during probe to decide whether to lock the 
parent?

Best Regards
Wei

[-- Attachment #2: boot_before_patch.svg --]
[-- Type: image/svg+xml, Size: 35036 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: boot_after_patch.svg --]
[-- Type: image/svg+xml, Size: 36882 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2017-05-02  2:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-04-24  5:42 [PATCH] driver-core: remove lock for platform devices during probe Wei Li
2017-04-24  7:32 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2017-04-24  8:27   ` weili
2017-04-24  8:46     ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2017-04-25  8:43       ` weili
2017-04-25 11:36         ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2017-05-02  2:18           ` weili [this message]
2017-05-02 18:37             ` Greg Kroah-Hartman

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=128e7cfa7d551607e195c4e087572594@codeaurora.org \
    --to=weili@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sonic@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=vatsa@codeaurora.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.