linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] PM/CPU: Parallel enabling nonboot cpus with resume devices

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <53CF8504.6030806@intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:48:52 +0800
From:	Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	rjw@...ysocki.net, len.brown@...el.com, pavel@....cz,
	toshi.kani@...com, mingo@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	todd.e.brandt@...ux.intel.com, fabf@...net.be,
	srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] PM/CPU: Parallel enabling nonboot cpus with resume
 devices

On 2014年07月23日 17:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 05:11:34PM +0800, Lan Tianyu wrote:
>> In the current world, all nonboot cpus are enabled serially during system
>> resume. System resume sequence is that boot cpu enables nonboot cpu one by
>> one and then resume devices. Before resuming devices, there are few tasks
>> assigned to nonboot cpus after they are brought up. This waste cpu usage.
>>
>> To accelerate S3, this patches adds a new kernel configure
>> PM_PARALLEL_CPU_UP_FOR_SUSPEND to allow boot cpu to go forward to resume
>> devices after bringing up one nonboot cpu. The nonboot cpu will be in charge
>> of bringing up other cpus. This makes enabling cpu2~x parallel with resuming
>> devices. From the test result on 4 logical core laptop, the time of resume
>> device almost wasn't affected by enabling nonboot cpus lately while the start
>> point is almost 30ms earlier than before.
> 
> Why is this a CONFIG and why do we want to add more warts to the cpu
> hotplug instead of fixing it 'proper'?
> 

Hi Peter:
	Thank you for your review. Because I just tested this patch on x86
platform and didn't want to cause some regressions on the other
platforms. So I made it as a new CONFIG. In theory, this should not
cause some problems. If none objects, it can be the default behavior.

-- 
Best regards
Tianyu Lan
--
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/