From: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@kernel.org>
To: Evan Green <evan@rivosinc.com>
Cc: Anup Patel <apatel@ventanamicro.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>,
Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
Greentime Hu <greentime.hu@sifive.com>,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] RISC-V: Probe misaligned access speed in parallel
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:41:38 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZQutYtStGGVxI36X@xhacker> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230920193801.3035093-1-evan@rivosinc.com>
On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 12:38:01PM -0700, Evan Green wrote:
> Probing for misaligned access speed takes about 0.06 seconds. On a
> system with 64 cores, doing this in smp_callin() means it's done
> serially, extending boot time by 3.8 seconds. That's a lot of boot time.
>
> Instead of measuring each CPU serially, let's do the measurements on
> all CPUs in parallel. If we disable preemption on all CPUs, the
> jiffies stop ticking, so we can do this in stages of 1) everybody
> except core 0, then 2) core 0.
>
> The measurement call in smp_callin() stays around, but is now
> conditionalized to only run if a new CPU shows up after the round of
> in-parallel measurements has run. The goal is to have the measurement
> call not run during boot or suspend/resume, but only on a hotplug
> addition.
>
> Reported-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@kernel.org>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/mhng-9359993d-6872-4134-83ce-c97debe1cf9a@palmer-ri-x1c9/T/#mae9b8f40016f9df428829d33360144dc5026bcbf
> Fixes: 584ea6564bca ("RISC-V: Probe for unaligned access speed")
> Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evan@rivosinc.com>
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
> Tested-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
Tested-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@kernel.org>
>
> ---
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Removed new global, used system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING instead
> (Jisheng)
> - Added tags
>
> arch/riscv/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 2 +-
> arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
> arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> index d0345bd659c9..b139796392d0 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> @@ -30,6 +30,6 @@ DECLARE_PER_CPU(long, misaligned_access_speed);
> /* Per-cpu ISA extensions. */
> extern struct riscv_isainfo hart_isa[NR_CPUS];
>
> -void check_unaligned_access(int cpu);
> +int check_unaligned_access(void *unused);
>
> #endif
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> index 1cfbba65d11a..40bb854fcb96 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> @@ -556,8 +556,9 @@ unsigned long riscv_get_elf_hwcap(void)
> return hwcap;
> }
>
> -void check_unaligned_access(int cpu)
> +int check_unaligned_access(void *unused)
> {
> + int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> u64 start_cycles, end_cycles;
> u64 word_cycles;
> u64 byte_cycles;
> @@ -571,7 +572,7 @@ void check_unaligned_access(int cpu)
> page = alloc_pages(GFP_NOWAIT, get_order(MISALIGNED_BUFFER_SIZE));
> if (!page) {
> pr_warn("Can't alloc pages to measure memcpy performance");
> - return;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> /* Make an unaligned destination buffer. */
> @@ -643,15 +644,26 @@ void check_unaligned_access(int cpu)
>
> out:
> __free_pages(page, get_order(MISALIGNED_BUFFER_SIZE));
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void check_unaligned_access_nonboot_cpu(void *param)
> +{
> + if (smp_processor_id() != 0)
> + check_unaligned_access(param);
> }
>
> -static int check_unaligned_access_boot_cpu(void)
> +static int check_unaligned_access_all_cpus(void)
> {
> - check_unaligned_access(0);
> + /* Check everybody except 0, who stays behind to tend jiffies. */
> + on_each_cpu(check_unaligned_access_nonboot_cpu, NULL, 1);
> +
> + /* Check core 0. */
> + smp_call_on_cpu(0, check_unaligned_access, NULL, true);
> return 0;
> }
>
> -arch_initcall(check_unaligned_access_boot_cpu);
> +arch_initcall(check_unaligned_access_all_cpus);
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_ALTERNATIVE
> /*
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c
> index 1b8da4e40a4d..a014955b8699 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
> #include <linux/sched/mm.h>
> #include <asm/cpu_ops.h>
> #include <asm/cpufeature.h>
> +#include <asm/hwprobe.h>
> #include <asm/irq.h>
> #include <asm/mmu_context.h>
> #include <asm/numa.h>
> @@ -246,7 +247,15 @@ asmlinkage __visible void smp_callin(void)
>
> numa_add_cpu(curr_cpuid);
> set_cpu_online(curr_cpuid, 1);
> - check_unaligned_access(curr_cpuid);
> +
> + /*
> + * Boot-time misaligned access speed measurements are done in parallel
> + * in an initcall. Only measure here for hotplug.
> + */
> + if ((system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING) &&
> + (per_cpu(misaligned_access_speed, curr_cpuid) == RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN)) {
> + check_unaligned_access(NULL);
> + }
>
> if (has_vector()) {
> if (riscv_v_setup_vsize())
> --
> 2.34.1
>
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-21 2:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-20 19:38 [PATCH v2] RISC-V: Probe misaligned access speed in parallel Evan Green
2023-09-20 21:03 ` Conor Dooley
2023-09-20 21:27 ` Atish Patra
2023-09-20 22:06 ` Evan Green
2023-09-20 22:25 ` Conor Dooley
2023-09-29 11:19 ` Conor Dooley
2023-09-20 22:57 ` Atish Patra
2023-09-20 23:54 ` Evan Green
2023-09-21 10:22 ` David Laight
2023-09-21 16:44 ` Evan Green
2023-09-21 16:49 ` Evan Green
2023-09-21 2:41 ` Jisheng Zhang [this message]
2023-11-02 20:20 ` patchwork-bot+linux-riscv
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=ZQutYtStGGVxI36X@xhacker \
--to=jszhang@kernel.org \
--cc=David.Laight@aculab.com \
--cc=ajones@ventanamicro.com \
--cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=apatel@ventanamicro.com \
--cc=conor.dooley@microchip.com \
--cc=evan@rivosinc.com \
--cc=greentime.hu@sifive.com \
--cc=heiko@sntech.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=palmer@rivosinc.com \
--cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.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