From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 749ACC04EB8 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 23:25:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43C9B20821 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 23:25:06 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 43C9B20821 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729722AbeLJXZF (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:25:05 -0500 Received: from mga07.intel.com ([134.134.136.100]:27921 "EHLO mga07.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728025AbeLJXZE (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:25:04 -0500 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Dec 2018 15:25:04 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,340,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="258396684" Received: from ahduyck-desk1.jf.intel.com ([10.7.198.76]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Dec 2018 15:25:04 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [driver-core PATCH v8 0/9] Add NUMA aware async_schedule calls From: Alexander Duyck To: Luis Chamberlain Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, tj@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, rafael@kernel.org, len.brown@intel.com, pavel@ucw.cz, zwisler@kernel.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com, dave.jiang@intel.com, bvanassche@acm.org Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:25:04 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20181210192216.GJ28501@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com> References: <154403054034.11544.3978949383914046587.stgit@ahduyck-desk1.jf.intel.com> <20181210192216.GJ28501@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-2.fc28) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 11:22 -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 09:25:13AM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > This patch set provides functionality that will help to improve the > > locality of the async_schedule calls used to provide deferred > > initialization. > > > > This patch set originally started out focused on just the one call to > > async_schedule_domain in the nvdimm tree that was being used to defer the > > device_add call however after doing some digging I realized the scope of > > this was much broader than I had originally planned. As such I went > > through and reworked the underlying infrastructure down to replacing the > > queue_work call itself with a function of my own and opted to try and > > provide a NUMA aware solution that would work for a broader audience. > > > > In addition I have added several tweaks and/or clean-ups to the front of the > > patch set. Patches 1 through 4 address a number of issues that actually were > > causing the existing async_schedule calls to not show the performance that > > they could due to either not scaling on a per device basis, or due to issues > > that could result in a potential deadlock. For example, patch 4 addresses the > > fact that we were calling async_schedule once per driver instead of once > > per device, and as a result we would have still ended up with devices > > being probed on a non-local node without addressing this first. > > No tests were added. Again, I think it would be good to add test > cases to showcase the old mechanisms, illustrate the new, and ensure > we don't regress both now and also help us ensure we don't regress > moving forward. > > This is all too critical of a path for the kernel, and these changes > are rather instrusive. I'd readlly like to see test code for it now > rather than later. > > Luis Sorry about that. I was more focused on the rewrite of patch 2 and overlooked the comment about lib/test_kmod.c. I'll look into it and see if I can squeeze it in for v9. Thanks. - Alex