[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130410175519.GG3658@sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:55:19 -0500
From: Robin Holt <holt@....com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Robin Holt <holt@....com>, Russ Anderson <rja@....com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Do not force shutdown/reboot to boot cpu.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 07:22:36PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Robin Holt <holt@....com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 06:59:34PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Russ Anderson <rja@....com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > 4 minutes bootup is 240 seconds, with 1024 CPUs that's about 240 msecs per CPU.
> > >
> > > That sounds a lot, given that unlike bootup there's not much real work to be done
> > > during shutdown - we don't initialize anything, etc.
> > >
> > > Maybe much of those 240 msecs are spent in some stupid udelay loop or so, which
> > > could be made parallel?
> > >
> > > Would it be possible to create a 'reboot but stop at the end and reactivate all
> > > CPUs again' reboot flag, so that it can all be NMI-profiled, to see where the true
> > > bottleneck is? A naked disable_nonboot_cpus() call in essence.
> >
> > What, exactly, are you proposing with the NMI profiling? [...]
>
> I'm proposing to make 'reboot' overhead profilable, via a debug hack:
>
> echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/magic_dont_fully_reboot_flag
>
> perf record reboot
>
> perf is using NMIs to profile - and since much of cpu_down() is with irqs
> disabled, NMI profiling would be needed to see inside the overhead.
>
> (Assuming the 240 msecs is CPU overhead, not waiting for some IRQ/IPI event.)
Let me give it a try.
Robin
--
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