public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 --]

  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