From: Tanjore Suresh <tansuresh@google.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Tanjore Suresh <tansuresh@google.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 0/3] Asynchronous shutdown interface and example implementation
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 15:08:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220517220816.1635044-1-tansuresh@google.com> (raw)
Problem:
Some of our machines are configured with many NVMe devices and
are validated for strict shutdown time requirements. Each NVMe
device plugged into the system, typicaly takes about 4.5 secs
to shutdown. A system with 16 such NVMe devices will takes
approximately 80 secs to shutdown and go through reboot.
The current shutdown APIs as defined at bus level is defined to be
synchronous. Therefore, more devices are in the system the greater
the time it takes to shutdown. This shutdown time significantly
contributes the machine reboot time.
Solution:
This patch set proposes an asynchronous shutdown interface at bus level,
modifies the core driver, device shutdown routine to exploit the
new interface while maintaining backward compatibility with synchronous
implementation already existing (Patch 1 of 3) and exploits new interface
to enable all PCI-E based devices to use asynchronous interface semantics
if necessary (Patch 2 of 3). The implementation at PCI-E level also works
in a backward compatible way, to allow exiting device implementation
to work with current synchronous semantics. Only show cases an example
implementation for NVMe device to exploit this asynchronous shutdown
interface. (Patch 3 of 3).
Changelog:
v2: - Replaced the shutdown_pre & shutdown_post entry point names with the
recommended names (async_shutdown_start and asynch_shutdown_end).
- Comment about ordering requirements between bridge shutdown versus
leaf/endpoint shutdown was agreed to be different when calling
async_shutdown_start and async_shutdown_end. Now this implements the
same order of calling both start and end entry points.
v3: - This notes clarifies why power management framework was not
considered for implementing this shutdown optimization.
There is no code change done. This change notes clarfies
the reasoning only.
This patch is only for shutdown of the system. The shutdown
entry points are traditionally have different requirement
where all devices are brought to a quiescent state and then
system power may be removed (power down request scenarios)
and also the same entry point is used to shutdown all devices
and re-initialized and restarted (soft shutdown/reboot
scenarios).
Whereas, the device power management (dpm) allows the device
to bring down any device configured in the system that may be
idle to various low power states that the device may support
in a selective manner and based on transitions that device
implementation allows. The power state transitions initiated
by the system can be achieved using 'dpm' interfaces already
specified.
Therefore the request to use the 'dpm' interface to achieve
this shutdown optimization is not the right approach as the
suggested interface is meant to solve an orthogonal requirement
and have historically been kept separate from the shutdown entry
points defined and its associated semantics.
Tanjore Suresh (3):
driver core: Support asynchronous driver shutdown
PCI: Support asynchronous shutdown
nvme: Add async shutdown support
drivers/base/core.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++-
drivers/nvme/host/core.c | 28 +++++++++----
drivers/nvme/host/nvme.h | 8 ++++
drivers/nvme/host/pci.c | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
drivers/pci/pci-driver.c | 20 ++++++++--
include/linux/device/bus.h | 12 ++++++
include/linux/pci.h | 4 ++
7 files changed, 149 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
--
2.36.0.550.gb090851708-goog
next reply other threads:[~2022-05-17 22:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-17 22:08 Tanjore Suresh [this message]
2022-05-17 22:08 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] driver core: Support asynchronous driver shutdown Tanjore Suresh
2022-05-17 22:08 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] PCI: Support asynchronous shutdown Tanjore Suresh
2022-05-17 22:08 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] nvme: Add async shutdown support Tanjore Suresh
2022-05-18 11:38 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] driver core: Support asynchronous driver shutdown Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-05-18 17:50 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2022-05-18 18:01 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-05-18 20:45 ` Tanjore Suresh
2022-08-02 21:35 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2022-08-03 15:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
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=20220517220816.1635044-1-tansuresh@google.com \
--to=tansuresh@google.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox