All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Cc: "Jan H. Schönherr" <jschoenh@amazon.de>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	x86@kernel.org,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Anthony Liguori" <aliguori@amazon.com>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, "Tim Deegan" <tim@xen.org>,
	"Gang Wei" <gang.wei@intel.com>,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: skip delays during SMP initialization similar to Xen
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 12:23:51 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150507102351.GA14347@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJvTdKkO+5DG83bTY+rD294q2ZechPLs384kbL6oz8rhLyPTOg@mail.gmail.com>


* Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> wrote:

> > So I really like this, as it nicely side-steps the 'when should we 
> > do the legacy delays' issue by flagging on x2apic support.
> >
> > If anyone has objections, please holler.
> 
> We should have no delays even for many processors that lack x2apic.

Yes, agreed, but this looks like a good (and safe) first step: 
especially systems that have large CPU counts tend to have x2apic 
support - and that is where such a change matters most.

I'm not against doing a zero delay approach either, if it can be 
triggered robustly.

Here's what the boot time looks like on a 120 CPUs system, with the 
patch applied:

[    0.558947] x86: Booting SMP configuration:
[    0.563375] .... node  #0, CPUs:          #1   #2   #3   #4   #5   #6   #7   #8   #9  #10  #11  #12  #13  #14
[    0.644851] .... node  #1, CPUs:    #15  #16  #17  #18  #19  #20  #21  #22  #23  #24  #25  #26  #27  #28  #29
[    0.830474] .... node  #2, CPUs:    #30  #31  #32  #33  #34  #35  #36  #37  #38  #39  #40  #41  #42  #43  #44
[    1.016357] .... node  #3, CPUs:    #45  #46  #47  #48  #49  #50  #51  #52  #53  #54  #55  #56  #57  #58  #59
[    1.202342] .... node  #0, CPUs:    #60  #61  #62  #63  #64  #65  #66  #67  #68  #69  #70  #71  #72  #73  #74
[    1.283864] .... node  #1, CPUs:    #75  #76  #77  #78  #79  #80  #81  #82  #83  #84  #85  #86  #87  #88  #89
[    1.397131] .... node  #2, CPUs:    #90  #91  #92  #93  #94  #95  #96  #97  #98  #99 #100 #101 #102 #103 #104
[    1.510417] .... node  #3, CPUs:   #105 #106 #107 #108 #109 #110 #111 #112 #113 #114 #115 #116 #117 #118 #119
[    1.620967] x86: Booted up 4 nodes, 120 CPUs
[    1.625928] smpboot: Total of 120 processors activated (672866.16 BogoMIPS)

1.1 seconds to boot 120 CPUs, 10.8 seconds to hit init, that's an 
entirely reasonable runtime I think.

It was 20+ seconds before that, 10+ seconds for the SMP bootup 
sequence.

Thanks,

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2015-05-07 10:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-05-04  9:42 [PATCH] x86: skip delays during SMP initialization similar to Xen Jan H. Schönherr
2015-05-06  8:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-07  1:27   ` Len Brown
2015-05-07 10:23     ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2015-05-12  8:03       ` Len Brown
2015-05-12  9:43         ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-12  9:47         ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-12 10:12           ` Borislav Petkov
2015-05-14  6:36         ` Len Brown
2015-05-14  6:44           ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-16  8:46             ` Len Brown
2015-05-17  5:02               ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-28  5:31                 ` Len Brown
2015-05-29  2:16                   ` Len Brown
2015-05-14  7:18           ` Len Brown
2015-05-14 14:25             ` "Jan H. Schönherr"
2015-05-14 17:57               ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-16  9:07                 ` Len Brown
2015-05-17  5:26                   ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-06 10:13 ` [tip:x86/apic] x86/smpboot: Skip " tip-bot for Jan H. Schönherr
2015-05-13  7:15 ` [tip:x86/apic] Revert f5d6a52f5111 ("x86/smpboot: Skip delays during SMP initialization similar to Xen") tip-bot for Ingo Molnar

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=20150507102351.GA14347@gmail.com \
    --to=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=aliguori@amazon.com \
    --cc=gang.wei@intel.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jschoenh@amazon.de \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tim@xen.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.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.