From: weili@codeaurora.org
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vatsa@codeaurora.org, sonic@codeaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver-core: remove lock for platform devices during probe
Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 10:18:25 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <128e7cfa7d551607e195c4e087572594@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170425113629.GB7191@kroah.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2947 bytes --]
Hi Greg K-H,
On 2017-04-25 19:36, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 04:43:33PM +0800, weili@codeaurora.org wrote:
>> Hi Greg K-H,
>>
>> On 2017-04-24 16:46, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>
>> > And does it really reduce boot time? What are the numbers?
>> Yes, it really reduce boot time. After making most time-consuming
>> platform
>> driver using async probe
>> and also applying this patch, we see the driver run in parallel with
>> others and saving 140ms.
>
> And why wasn't that information in the initial commit message?
>
> And how much of a % is 140ms? Why is a single driver taking that long
> to initialize itself?
The kernel took 1.72 seconds to boot to run the first init program.
140ms is 8% improvement.
140ms is long for a single driver initialize. We are in discussion with
the driver owner
about optimization.
>> > What does the boot graph look like when you run with and without this
>> > patch?
>> Without the patch, the boot graph is like this:
>> CPU0: platform driver1 probe -> lock parent -> do probe staff ->
>> unlock
>> parent -> probe finish
>> CPU1: platform driver2 probe -> wait for lock on
>> parent
>> -> lock parent -> do probe -> unlock parent -> probe finish
>>
>> With the patch, the boot graph is like this:
>> CPU0: platform driver1 probe -> do probe staff -> probe finish
>> CPU1: platform drvier2 probe -> do probe staff -> probe finish
>
> No, I mean the boot graph in pretty .svg format that the kernel can
> output, with times and processes and everything. Look in the tools
> directory for more information, it will give you the exact timing for
> your change before and after and show you exactly where you are taking
> long periods of time.
>
> You did use that, or something else to measure this somehow, right?
>
The boot graph is in the attachment. The function msm_sharedmem_init
took
long time because it is blocked by another async probe driver. After
applying the patch, msm_sharedmem_init is no longer blocked.
>> > Why is the platform bus so "special" to warrant this? Should we perhaps
>> > make this
>> > an option for any bus to enable/disable?
>> The lock on parent was first introduced by USB guys in following
>> commit
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/commit/drivers/base/dd.c?id=bf74ad5bc41727d5f2f1c6bedb2c1fac394de731
>> This may be useful for real bus devices such as USB and they think
>> overhead of acquiring a lock is not large.
>> But since platfrom bus is virtual, the lock is not necessary.
>> Removing it
>> for platform devices will make
>> driver running in parallel and benefit boot time.
>
> I know all about USB here :)
>
> You did not answer my questions :(
>
Do you suggest that we add some varible like "async_probe" in struct
bus_type and
then check the varible during probe to decide whether to lock the
parent?
Best Regards
Wei
[-- Attachment #2: boot_before_patch.svg --]
[-- Type: image/svg+xml, Size: 35036 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #3: boot_after_patch.svg --]
[-- Type: image/svg+xml, Size: 36882 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-02 2:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-24 5:42 [PATCH] driver-core: remove lock for platform devices during probe Wei Li
2017-04-24 7:32 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2017-04-24 8:27 ` weili
2017-04-24 8:46 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2017-04-25 8:43 ` weili
2017-04-25 11:36 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2017-05-02 2:18 ` weili [this message]
2017-05-02 18:37 ` 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=128e7cfa7d551607e195c4e087572594@codeaurora.org \
--to=weili@codeaurora.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sonic@codeaurora.org \
--cc=vatsa@codeaurora.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox