[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130512182935.GD24440@8bytes.org>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 20:29:35 +0200
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bisected post-3.9 regression: Resume takes 5 times as much time
as with v3.9
Hi Paul,
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 04:31:57AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 08:04:50PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> > Bisecting it ended up pointing to
> >
> > commit c0f4dfd4f90f1667d234d21f15153ea09a2eaa66
> > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
> > Date: Fri Dec 28 11:30:36 2012 -0800
> >
> > rcu: Make RCU_FAST_NO_HZ take advantage of numbered callbacks
> >
> > Because RCU callbacks are now associated with the number of the grace
> > period that they must wait for, CPUs can now take advance callbacks
> > corresponding to grace periods that ended while a given CPU was in
> > dyntick-idle mode. This eliminates the need to try forcing the RCU
> > state machine while entering idle, thus reducing the CPU intensiveness
> > of RCU_FAST_NO_HZ, which should increase its energy efficiency.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> >
> >
> > Being a big patch, I'm pretty sure that the problem is some minor
> > issue. But rather than trying to userstand this, just tried reverting
> > it on top of the current mainline and can confirm that this fixes the
> > regression. I'll leave the understanding to you :)
> >
> > I'm attaching the revert patch as I had to fix a conflict, and may have
> > done something wrong there. I'm also attaching my .config.
> >
> > Let me know if you need more information, or want me to try out proposed
> > fixes.
>
> We don't want to back out the RCU_FAST_NO_HZ changes due to their
> energy-efficiency benefits. So could you please try out Borislav's
> patch below? He ran into the same issue a few weeks ago, and this
> one fixed it for him.
I get a ~10min boot delay with this patch:
[ 1.149676] system 00:01: [mem 0xf6000000-0xf6003fff] could not be reserved
[ 1.149724] system 00:01: Plug and Play ACPI device, IDs PNP0c02 (active)
[ 603.957670] pnp 00:02: [dma 4]
[ 603.957735] pnp 00:02: Plug and Play ACPI device, IDs PNP0200 (active)
This happens on my AMD FX-6100 system. I bisected the problem down to the same
commit and reverting it fixes the problem. Any ideas?
Joerg
--
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