| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:55:11 +0800
From: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-ide@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] fastboot: Asynchronous function calls to speed up
kernel boot
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 12:10 +0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> From 15815a54b95e6866ff9532dead9cca4d6a298b54 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
> Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 05:32:28 -0800
> Subject: [PATCH] fastboot: Asynchronous function calls to speed up kernel boot
>
> Right now, most of the kernel boot is strictly synchronous, such that
> various hardware delays are done sequentially.
>
> In order to make the kernel boot faster, this patch introduces
> infrastructure to allow doing some of the initialization steps
> asynchronously, which will hide significant portions of the hardware delays
> in practice.
>
> In order to not change device order and other similar observables, this
> patch does NOT do full parallel initialization.
>
> Rather, it operates more in the way an out of order CPU does; the work may
> be done out of order and asynchronous, but the observable effects
> (instruction retiring for the CPU) are still done in the original sequence.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> include/linux/async.h | 21 ++++
> init/do_mounts.c | 2 +
> init/main.c | 5 +-
> kernel/Makefile | 3 +-
> kernel/async.c | 307 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> kernel/irq/autoprobe.c | 5 +
> kernel/module.c | 2 +
> 7 files changed, 343 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 include/linux/async.h
> create mode 100644 kernel/async.c
> +/*
> + * pick the first pending entry and run it
> + */
> +static void run_one_entry(void)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> + struct async_entry *entry;
> + ktime_t calltime, delta, rettime;
> +
> + /* 1) pick one task from the pending queue */
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&async_lock, flags);
> + if (list_empty(&async_pending))
> + goto out;
> + entry = list_first_entry(&async_pending, struct async_entry, list);
> +
> + /* 2) move it to the running queue */
> + list_del(&entry->list);
> + list_add_tail(&entry->list, &async_running);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&async_lock, flags);
> +
another question,
we should move the entry to the proper run list, don't we?
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
---
kernel/async.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/async.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/async.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/async.c
@@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ static void run_one_entry(void)
/* 2) move it to the running queue */
list_del(&entry->list);
- list_add_tail(&entry->list, &async_running);
+ list_add_tail(&entry->list, entry->running);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&async_lock, flags);
/* 3) run it (and print duration)*/
> + /* 3) run it (and print duration)*/
> + if (initcall_debug) {
> + printk("calling %lli_%pF @ %i\n", entry->cookie, entry->func, task_pid_nr(current));
> + calltime = ktime_get();
> + }
> + entry->func(entry->data, entry->cookie);
> + if (initcall_debug) {
> + rettime = ktime_get();
> + delta = ktime_sub(rettime, calltime);
> + printk("initcall %lli_%pF returned 0 after %lld usecs\n", entry->cookie,
> + entry->func, ktime_to_ns(delta) >> 10);
> + }
> +
> + /* 4) remove it from the running queue */
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&async_lock, flags);
> + list_del(&entry->list);
> +
> + /* 5) free the entry */
> + kfree(entry);
> + atomic_dec(&entry_count);
> +
> + /* 6) update the lowest_in_progress value */
> + __recalc_lowest_in_progress();
> +
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&async_lock, flags);
> +
> + /* 7) wake up any waiters. */
> + wake_up(&async_done);
> + return;
> +
> +out:
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&async_lock, flags);
> +}
> +
> +
> +async_cookie_t async_schedule(async_func_ptr *ptr, void *data)
> +{
> + struct async_entry *entry;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + async_cookie_t newcookie;
> +
> +
> + /* allow irq-off callers */
> + entry = kzalloc(sizeof(struct async_entry), GFP_ATOMIC);
> + if (!entry) {
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&async_lock, flags);
> + newcookie = next_cookie++;
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&async_lock, flags);
> +
> + /* low on memory.. run synchronously */
> + ptr(data, newcookie);
> + return newcookie;
> + }
> + entry->func = ptr;
> + entry->data = data;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&async_lock, flags);
> + newcookie = entry->cookie = next_cookie++;
> + list_add_tail(&entry->list, &async_pending);
> + atomic_inc(&entry_count);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&async_lock, flags);
> + wake_up(&async_new);
> + return newcookie;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(async_schedule);
> +
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists