From: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
To: Stuart Hayes <stuart.w.hayes@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Martin Belanger <Martin.Belanger@dell.com>,
Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@gmail.com>,
Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>, Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>,
Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>,
David Jeffery <djeffery@redhat.com>,
Jeremy Allison <jallison@ciq.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] driver core: shut down devices asynchronously
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2024 16:44:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8debbb55-449d-4f8d-a6dd-3ba15836aacf@wanadoo.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240822202805.6379-4-stuart.w.hayes@gmail.com>
Le 22/08/2024 à 22:28, Stuart Hayes a écrit :
> Add code to allow asynchronous shutdown of devices, ensuring that each
> device is shut down before its parents & suppliers.
>
> Only devices with drivers that have async_shutdown_enable enabled will be
> shut down asynchronously.
>
> This can dramatically reduce system shutdown/reboot time on systems that
> have multiple devices that take many seconds to shut down (like certain
> NVMe drives). On one system tested, the shutdown time went from 11 minutes
> without this patch to 55 seconds with the patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stuart Hayes <stuart.w.hayes@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: David Jeffery <djeffery@redhat.com>
> ---
...
> +/**
> + * shutdown_one_device_async
> + * @data: the pointer to the struct device to be shutdown
> + * @cookie: not used
> + *
> + * Shuts down one device, after waiting for shutdown_after to complete.
> + * shutdown_after should be set to the cookie of the last child or consumer
> + * of this device to be shutdown (if any), or to the cookie of the previous
> + * device to be shut down for devices that don't enable asynchronous shutdown.
> + */
> +static void shutdown_one_device_async(void *data, async_cookie_t cookie)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = data;
> +
> + async_synchronize_cookie_domain(dev->p->shutdown_after + 1, &sd_domain);
> +
> + shutdown_one_device(dev);
> +}
> +
> /**
> * device_shutdown - call ->shutdown() on each device to shutdown.
> */
> void device_shutdown(void)
> {
> struct device *dev, *parent;
> + async_cookie_t cookie = 0;
> + struct device_link *link;
> + int idx;
>
> wait_for_device_probe();
> device_block_probing();
> @@ -4852,11 +4878,37 @@ void device_shutdown(void)
> list_del_init(&dev->kobj.entry);
> spin_unlock(&devices_kset->list_lock);
>
> - shutdown_one_device(dev);
> +
> + /*
> + * Set cookie for devices that will be shut down synchronously
> + */
> + if (!dev->driver || !dev->driver->async_shutdown_enable)
> + dev->p->shutdown_after = cookie;
> +
> + get_device(dev);
> + get_device(parent);
> +
> + cookie = async_schedule_domain(shutdown_one_device_async,
> + dev, &sd_domain);
> + /*
> + * Ensure parent & suppliers wait for this device to shut down
> + */
> + if (parent) {
> + parent->p->shutdown_after = cookie;
> + put_device(parent);
Would it make sense to have this put_device() out of the if block?
IIUC, the behavior would be exactly the same, but it is more intuitive
to have a put_device(parent) called for each get_device(parent) call.
Another way to keep symmetry is to have:
if (parent)
get_device(parent);
above.
> + }
> +
> + idx = device_links_read_lock();
> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(link, &dev->links.suppliers, c_node,
> + device_links_read_lock_held())
> + link->supplier->p->shutdown_after = cookie;
> + device_links_read_unlock(idx);
> + put_device(dev);
>
> spin_lock(&devices_kset->list_lock);
> }
> spin_unlock(&devices_kset->list_lock);
> + async_synchronize_full_domain(&sd_domain);
> }
>
> /*
> diff --git a/include/linux/device/driver.h b/include/linux/device/driver.h
> index 1fc8b68786de..2b6127faaa25 100644
> --- a/include/linux/device/driver.h
> +++ b/include/linux/device/driver.h
> @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ enum probe_type {
> * @mod_name: Used for built-in modules.
> * @suppress_bind_attrs: Disables bind/unbind via sysfs.
> * @probe_type: Type of the probe (synchronous or asynchronous) to use.
> + * @async_shutdown_enable: Enables devices to be shutdown asynchronously.
> * @of_match_table: The open firmware table.
> * @acpi_match_table: The ACPI match table.
> * @probe: Called to query the existence of a specific device,
> @@ -102,6 +103,7 @@ struct device_driver {
>
> bool suppress_bind_attrs; /* disables bind/unbind via sysfs */
> enum probe_type probe_type;
> + bool async_shutdown_enable;
Maybe keep these 2 bools together to potentially avoid hole?
Just my 2c.
CJ
>
> const struct of_device_id *of_match_table;
> const struct acpi_device_id *acpi_match_table;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-08 14:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-22 20:28 [PATCH v8 0/4] shut down devices asynchronously Stuart Hayes
2024-08-22 20:28 ` [PATCH v8 1/4] driver core: don't always lock parent in shutdown Stuart Hayes
2024-08-23 6:26 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-08-25 7:56 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-08-22 20:28 ` [PATCH v8 2/4] driver core: separate function to shutdown one device Stuart Hayes
2024-08-23 6:26 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-08-25 7:56 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-08-22 20:28 ` [PATCH v8 3/4] driver core: shut down devices asynchronously Stuart Hayes
2024-08-23 6:26 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-08-25 7:58 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-09-05 22:13 ` Nathan Chancellor
2024-09-06 14:44 ` stuart hayes
2024-09-08 13:36 ` Jan Kiszka
2024-09-11 0:14 ` stuart hayes
2024-09-11 5:51 ` Jan Kiszka
2024-09-11 22:06 ` stuart hayes
2024-09-12 14:30 ` David Jeffery
2024-09-12 16:20 ` stuart hayes
2024-09-08 14:44 ` Christophe JAILLET [this message]
2024-09-23 20:50 ` Andrey Skvortsov
2024-09-24 9:23 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2024-09-24 20:44 ` Andrey Skvortsov
2024-09-25 8:55 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2024-08-22 20:28 ` [PATCH v8 4/4] nvme-pci: Make driver prefer asynchronous shutdown Stuart Hayes
2024-08-23 6:27 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-08-25 7:57 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-08-23 16:54 ` [PATCH v8 0/4] shut down devices asynchronously Keith Busch
2024-09-03 11:10 ` 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=8debbb55-449d-4f8d-a6dd-3ba15836aacf@wanadoo.fr \
--to=christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr \
--cc=Martin.Belanger@dell.com \
--cc=axboe@fb.com \
--cc=djeffery@redhat.com \
--cc=dwagner@suse.de \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jallison@ciq.com \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=lukas@wunner.de \
--cc=oohall@gmail.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
--cc=stuart.w.hayes@gmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox