From: Russ Anderson <rja@sgi.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Do not force shutdown/reboot to boot cpu.
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:29:12 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130410152911.GA3011@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFw8bRwMRm8cWtTGRvd1AEP-LR7pYL-pEoBkHqJUuJrjSg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 08:10:05AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:16 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > I think rebooting on the same CPU where we booted up is something worth having in
> > general, as a firmware robustness feature. (assuming the CPU in question is still
> > online)
>
> Yeah, we've had issues with ACPI in the past, so I do think we should
> always reboot using the BP. Even if it almost certainly works on 99+%
> of all machines on any random CPU.
>
> The optimal solution would be to just speed up the
> disable_nonboot_cpus() code so much that it isn't an issue. That would
> be good for suspending too, although I guess suspend isn't a big issue
> if you have a thousand CPU's.
>
> Has anybody checked whether we could do the cpu_down() on non-boot
> CPU's in parallel? Right now we serialize the thing completely, with
> one single
>
> for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> ...
>
> loop that does a synchrinous _cpu_down() for each CPU. No wonder it
> takes forever. We do __stop_machine() over and over and over again:
> the whole thing is basically O(n**2) in CPU's.
Yes, I have a test patch that replaces for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
with a cpu bitmask in disable_nonboot_cpus(). The lower level
routines already take a bitmask. It allows __stop_machine() to
be called just once. That change reduces shutdown time on a
1024 cpu machine from 16 minutes 4 minutes. Significant improvement,
but not good enough.
The next significant bottleneck is __cpu_notify(). Tried creating
worker threads to parallelize the shutdown, but the problem is
__cpu_notify() is not thread safe. Putting a lock around it
caused all the worker threads to fight over the lock.
Note that __cpu_notify() has to be called for all cpus being
shut down because the cpu_chain notifier call chain has cpu as a
parameter. The delema is that cpu_chain notifiers need to be called on
all cpus, but cannot be done in parallel due to __cpu_notify() not being
thread safe. Spinning through the notifier chain sequentially for all
cpus just takes a long time.
The real fix would be to make the &cpu_chain notifier per cpu, or at
least thread safe, so that all the cpus being shut down could do so
in parallel. That is a significant change with ramifications on
other code.
I will post a patch shortly with the cpu bitmask change. Changing
__cpu_notify() will take more discussion.
> Linus
--
Russ Anderson, OS RAS/Partitioning Project Lead
SGI - Silicon Graphics Inc rja@sgi.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-10 15:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-03 19:37 [PATCH] Do not force shutdown/reboot to boot cpu Robin Holt
2013-04-08 15:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-04-08 16:11 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-08 16:59 ` Robin Holt
2013-04-10 11:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-04-10 14:01 ` Robin Holt
2013-04-10 15:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-04-10 15:29 ` Russ Anderson [this message]
2013-04-10 16:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-04-10 17:14 ` Robin Holt
2013-04-10 17:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-04-10 17:55 ` Robin Holt
2013-04-10 19:00 ` Robin Holt
2013-04-11 8:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-04-11 11:34 ` Robin Holt
2013-04-11 12:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-04-11 12:03 ` Robin Holt
2013-04-11 12:08 ` Robin Holt
2013-04-11 12:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-04-10 17:58 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-04-10 23:02 ` Russ Anderson
2013-04-10 22:29 ` Russ Anderson
2013-04-11 5:31 ` Paul Mackerras
2013-04-11 12:45 ` Bulk CPU Hotplug (Was Re: [PATCH] Do not force shutdown/reboot to boot cpu.) Srivatsa S. Bhat
2013-04-11 13:48 ` Robin Holt
2013-04-12 5:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-04-12 6:09 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2013-04-12 9:31 ` Robin Holt
2013-04-12 10:01 ` Robin Holt
2013-04-13 16:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-15 16:04 ` Robin Holt
2013-04-15 16:09 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-15 16:10 ` Robin Holt
2013-04-13 17:01 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2013-04-15 10:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-04-15 12:02 ` Robin Holt
2013-04-15 15:59 ` Robin Holt
2013-04-16 9:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-04-11 14:23 ` Russ Anderson
2013-04-11 14:45 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2013-04-11 20:08 ` Russ Anderson
2013-04-11 20:17 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2013-04-11 21:08 ` Robin Holt
2013-04-08 16:54 ` [PATCH] Do not force shutdown/reboot to boot cpu Robin Holt
2013-04-08 17:07 ` Russ Anderson
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=20130410152911.GA3011@sgi.com \
--to=rja@sgi.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=holt@sgi.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=shawn.guo@linaro.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.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