From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
To: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
Cc: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Intel microcode loader performance improvement
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:37:10 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B955FF6.5060300@tmr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b647ffbd1003080233y5f06797fucaca3cf839e4de57@mail.gmail.com>
Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> On 5 March 2010 18:42, Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com> wrote:
>> We've noticed that on large SGI UV system configurations, running
>> microcode.ctl can take very long periods of time. This is due to
>> the large number of vmalloc/vfree calls made by the Intel
>> generic_load_microcode() logic.
>>
>> By reusing allocated space, the following patch reduces the time
>> to run microcode.ctl on a 1024 cpu system from approximately 80
>> seconds down to 1 or 2 seconds.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com>
>
> This approach seems reasonable in the scope of the current framework.
>
> Acked-by: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
>
> However, I think a better approach would be to have some kind of
> shared storage for loaded microcode updates. Given that for the
> majority of SMP systems all the cpus are normally updated to the very
> same new instance of microcode, it should be enough to do a search for
> the first cpu, cache the instance of microcode and then reuse it for
> others.
>
The assumption that all CPUs are the same is not always true in practice, people
buy a system and don't always fully populate initially, and when they add
processors, they have a more recent stepping. So reusing microcode or updating
in parallel would add complexity, and 2 sec for 1024 CPUs puts a pretty low
upper bound on possible improvement. Does more improvement to a one time small
delay justify additional complexity?
Systems that size are probably not booted all that often. Something to consider
before putting a lot of effort into it, I think.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-08 20:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-05 17:42 [PATCH] x86: Intel microcode loader performance improvement Dimitri Sivanich
2010-03-08 10:33 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2010-03-08 11:23 ` Avi Kivity
2010-03-08 20:37 ` Bill Davidsen [this message]
2010-03-11 14:39 ` [tip:x86/microcode] x86: Improve Intel microcode loader performance tip-bot for Dimitri Sivanich
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=4B955FF6.5060300@tmr.com \
--to=davidsen@tmr.com \
--cc=dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=sivanich@sgi.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.