All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com,
	tiwai@suse.de, arjan@linux.intel.com, teg@jklm.no,
	rmilasan@suse.com, werner@suse.com, oleg@redhat.com,
	hare@suse.com, bpoirier@suse.de, santosh@chelsio.com,
	pmladek@suse.cz, dbueso@suse.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@canonical.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay@vrfy.org>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>,
	Pierre Fersing <pierre-fersing@pierref.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Nagalakshmi Nandigama <nagalakshmi.nandigama@avagotech.com>,
	Praveen Krishnamoorthy <praveen.krishnamoorthy@avagotech.com>,
	Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@avagotech.com>,
	Abhijit Mahajan <abhijit.mahajan@avagotech.com>,
	Casey Leedom <leedom@che>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] driver-core: add preferred async probe option for built-in and modules
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 13:55:03 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141007175503.GE31328@mtj.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141007175010.GH14081@wotan.suse.de>

Hello,

On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 07:50:10PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:34:04PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > But you can create a new workqueue and queue all the async probing
> > work items there and flush the workqueue right after
> > async_synchronize_full().
> 
> On second thought I would prefer to avoid this, I see this being good
> to help with old userspace but other than that I don't see a requirement
> for new userspace. Do you?

Hmmm... we batch up and do everything parallel, so I'm not sure how
much gain we'd be looking at by not waiting for at the end before
jumping into the userland.  Also, it's a bit of an orthogonal issue.
If we wanna skip such synchornization point before passing control to
userland, why are we applying that to this but not
async_synchronize_full() which has a far larger impact?  It's weird to
synchronize one while not the other, so yeah, if there are actual
benefits we can consider it but let's do it separately.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com,
	tiwai@suse.de, arjan@linux.intel.com, teg@jklm.no,
	rmilasan@suse.com, werner@suse.com, oleg@redhat.com,
	hare@suse.com, bpoirier@suse.de, santosh@chelsio.com,
	pmladek@suse.cz, dbueso@suse.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@canonical.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay@vrfy.org>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>,
	Pierre Fersing <pierre-fersing@pierref.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Nagalakshmi Nandigama <nagalakshmi.nandigama@avagotech.com>,
	Praveen Krishnamoorthy <praveen.krishnamoorthy@avagotech.com>,
	Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@avagotech.com>,
	Abhijit Mahajan <abhijit.mahajan@avagotech.com>,
	Casey Leedom <leedom@chelsio.com>,
	Hariprasad S <hariprasad@chelsio.com>,
	MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@avagotech.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] driver-core: add preferred async probe option for built-in and modules
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 13:55:03 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141007175503.GE31328@mtj.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141007175010.GH14081@wotan.suse.de>

Hello,

On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 07:50:10PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:34:04PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > But you can create a new workqueue and queue all the async probing
> > work items there and flush the workqueue right after
> > async_synchronize_full().
> 
> On second thought I would prefer to avoid this, I see this being good
> to help with old userspace but other than that I don't see a requirement
> for new userspace. Do you?

Hmmm... we batch up and do everything parallel, so I'm not sure how
much gain we'd be looking at by not waiting for at the end before
jumping into the userland.  Also, it's a bit of an orthogonal issue.
If we wanna skip such synchornization point before passing control to
userland, why are we applying that to this but not
async_synchronize_full() which has a far larger impact?  It's weird to
synchronize one while not the other, so yeah, if there are actual
benefits we can consider it but let's do it separately.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com,
	tiwai@suse.de, arjan@linux.intel.com, teg@jklm.no,
	rmilasan@suse.com, werner@suse.com, oleg@redhat.com,
	hare@suse.com, bpoirier@suse.de, santosh@chelsio.com,
	pmladek@suse.cz, dbueso@suse.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@canonical.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay@vrfy.org>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>,
	Pierre Fersing <pierre-fersing@pierref.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Nagalakshmi Nandigama <nagalakshmi.nandigama@avagotech.com>,
	Praveen Krishnamoorthy <praveen.krishnamoorthy@avagotech.com>,
	Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@avagotech.com>,
	Abhijit Mahajan <abhijit.mahajan@avagotech.com>,
	Casey Leedom <leedom@che
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] driver-core: add preferred async probe option for built-in and modules
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 13:55:03 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141007175503.GE31328@mtj.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141007175010.GH14081@wotan.suse.de>

Hello,

On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 07:50:10PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:34:04PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > But you can create a new workqueue and queue all the async probing
> > work items there and flush the workqueue right after
> > async_synchronize_full().
> 
> On second thought I would prefer to avoid this, I see this being good
> to help with old userspace but other than that I don't see a requirement
> for new userspace. Do you?

Hmmm... we batch up and do everything parallel, so I'm not sure how
much gain we'd be looking at by not waiting for at the end before
jumping into the userland.  Also, it's a bit of an orthogonal issue.
If we wanna skip such synchornization point before passing control to
userland, why are we applying that to this but not
async_synchronize_full() which has a far larger impact?  It's weird to
synchronize one while not the other, so yeah, if there are actual
benefits we can consider it but let's do it separately.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

  reply	other threads:[~2014-10-07 17:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-10-03 21:44 [PATCH v2 0/7] driver-core: async probe support Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 21:44 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] taint: add TAINT_DEBUG for invasive debugging features Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-15  5:35   ` Rusty Russell
2014-10-20 20:37     ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 21:44 ` [Cocci] [PATCH v2 2/7] module: add extra argument for parse_params() callback Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 21:44   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-04 12:55   ` [Cocci] " SF Markus Elfring
2014-10-04 12:55     ` SF Markus Elfring
2014-10-06 20:38     ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-06 20:38       ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-06 21:06       ` SF Markus Elfring
2014-10-06 21:06         ` SF Markus Elfring
2014-10-06 22:15         ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-06 22:15           ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-15  5:35   ` Rusty Russell
2014-10-15  5:35     ` Rusty Russell
2014-10-03 21:44 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] driver-core: enable drivers to opt-out of async probe Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 21:44 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] amd64_edac: enforce synchronous probe Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 21:44 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] driver-core: generalize freeing driver private member Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 21:44 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] driver-core: add driver module asynchronous probe support Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 21:44   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 21:44 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] driver-core: add preferred async probe option for built-in and modules Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 21:44   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-06 20:19   ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-06 20:19     ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-06 20:19     ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-06 20:36     ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-06 20:36       ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-06 20:36       ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-06 21:01       ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-06 21:01         ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-06 21:01         ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-06 23:10         ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-06 23:10           ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-06 23:10           ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-07 17:34           ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-07 17:34             ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-07 17:34             ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-07 17:50             ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-07 17:50               ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-07 17:50               ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-07 17:55               ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2014-10-07 17:55                 ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-07 17:55                 ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-07 18:55                 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-07 18:55                   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-07 18:55                   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-07 19:07                   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-07 19:07                     ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-07 19:07                     ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-06 20:41   ` Dmitry Torokhov
2014-10-06 20:41     ` Dmitry Torokhov
2014-10-06 20:41     ` Dmitry Torokhov

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=20141007175503.GE31328@mtj.dyndns.org \
    --to=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=abhijit.mahajan@avagotech.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=bpoirier@suse.de \
    --cc=dbueso@suse.com \
    --cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
    --cc=gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=hare@suse.com \
    --cc=joseph.salisbury@canonical.com \
    --cc=kay@vrfy.org \
    --cc=leedom@che \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mcgrof@do-not-panic.com \
    --cc=mcgrof@suse.com \
    --cc=nagalakshmi.nandigama@avagotech.com \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
    --cc=pierre-fersing@pierref.org \
    --cc=pmladek@suse.cz \
    --cc=praveen.krishnamoorthy@avagotech.com \
    --cc=rmilasan@suse.com \
    --cc=santosh@chelsio.com \
    --cc=sreekanth.reddy@avagotech.com \
    --cc=teg@jklm.no \
    --cc=tim.gardner@canonical.com \
    --cc=tiwai@suse.de \
    --cc=werner@suse.com \
    /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.