Message-ID: <d34f83ad-63a0-8cd1-1246-d0e50c03f42e@molgen.mpg.de>
Date:   Sat, 6 Nov 2021 11:42:40 +0100
From:   Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jörg Rödel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        x86@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: How to reduce PCI initialization from 5 s (1.5 s adding them to
 IOMMU groups)

Dear Bjorn,


Thank you for your quick reply.


Am 05.11.21 um 19:53 schrieb Bjorn Helgaas:
> On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 12:56:09PM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote:

>> On a PowerEdge T440/021KCD, BIOS 2.11.2 04/22/2021, Linux 5.10.70 takes
>> almost five seconds to initialize PCI. According to the timestamps, 1.5 s
>> are from assigning the PCI devices to the 142 IOMMU groups.
>>
>> ```
>> $ lspci | wc -l
>> 281
>> $ dmesg
>> […]
>> [    2.918411] PCI: Using host bridge windows from ACPI; if necessary, use "pci=nocrs" and report a bug
>> [    2.933841] ACPI: Enabled 5 GPEs in block 00 to 7F
>> [    2.973739] ACPI: PCI Root Bridge [PC00] (domain 0000 [bus 00-16])
>> [    2.980398] acpi PNP0A08:00: _OSC: OS supports [ExtendedConfig ASPM ClockPM Segments MSI HPX-Type3]
>> [    2.989457] acpi PNP0A08:00: _OSC: platform does not support [LTR]
>> [    2.995451] acpi PNP0A08:00: _OSC: OS now controls [PME PCIeCapability]
>> [    3.001394] acpi PNP0A08:00: FADT indicates ASPM is unsupported, using BIOS configuration
>> [    3.010511] PCI host bridge to bus 0000:00
>> […]
>> [    6.233508] system 00:05: [io  0x1000-0x10fe] has been reserved
>> [    6.239420] system 00:05: Plug and Play ACPI device, IDs PNP0c02 (active)
>> [    6.239906] pnp: PnP ACPI: found 6 devices
> 
> For ~280 PCI devices, (6.24-2.92)/280 = 0.012 s/dev.  On my laptop I
> have about (.66-.37)/36 = 0.008 s/dev (on v5.4), so about the same
> ballpark.

Though if it was on average 0.008 s/dev here, around a second could be 
saved.

The integrated Matrox G200eW3 graphics controller (102b:0536) and the 
two Broadcom NetXtreme BCM5720 2-port Gigabit Ethernet PCIe cards 
(14e4:165f) take 150 ms to be initialized.

     [    3.454409] pci 0000:03:00.0: [102b:0536] type 00 class 0x030000
     [    3.460411] pci 0000:03:00.0: reg 0x10: [mem 
0x91000000-0x91ffffff pref]
     [    3.467403] pci 0000:03:00.0: reg 0x14: [mem 0x92808000-0x9280bfff]
     [    3.473402] pci 0000:03:00.0: reg 0x18: [mem 0x92000000-0x927fffff]
     [    3.479437] pci 0000:03:00.0: BAR 0: assigned to efifb

The timestamp in each line differs by around 6 ms. Could printing the 
messages to the console (VGA) hold this up (line 373 to line 911 makes 
(6.24 s-2.92 s)/(538 lines) = (3.32 s)/(538 lines) = 6 ms)?

     [    3.484480] pci 0000:02:00.0: PCI bridge to [bus 03]
     [    3.489401] pci 0000:02:00.0:   bridge window [mem 
0x92000000-0x928fffff]
     [    3.496398] pci 0000:02:00.0:   bridge window [mem 
0x91000000-0x91ffffff 64bit pref]
     [    3.504446] pci 0000:04:00.0: [14e4:165f] type 00 class 0x020000
     [    3.510415] pci 0000:04:00.0: reg 0x10: [mem 
0x92e30000-0x92e3ffff 64bit pref]
     [    3.517408] pci 0000:04:00.0: reg 0x18: [mem 
0x92e40000-0x92e4ffff 64bit pref]
     [    3.524407] pci 0000:04:00.0: reg 0x20: [mem 
0x92e50000-0x92e5ffff 64bit pref]
     [    3.532402] pci 0000:04:00.0: reg 0x30: [mem 
0xfffc0000-0xffffffff pref]
     [    3.538483] pci 0000:04:00.0: PME# supported from D0 D3hot D3cold
     [    3.544437] pci 0000:04:00.0: 4.000 Gb/s available PCIe 
bandwidth, limited by 5.0 GT/s PCIe x1 link at 0000:00:1c.5 (capable of 
8.000 Gb/s with 5.0 GT/s PCIe x2 link)
     [    3.559493] pci 0000:04:00.1: [14e4:165f] type 00 class 0x020000

Here is a 15 ms delay.

     [    3.565415] pci 0000:04:00.1: reg 0x10: [mem 
0x92e00000-0x92e0ffff 64bit pref]
     [    3.573407] pci 0000:04:00.1: reg 0x18: [mem 
0x92e10000-0x92e1ffff 64bit pref]
     [    3.580407] pci 0000:04:00.1: reg 0x20: [mem 
0x92e20000-0x92e2ffff 64bit pref]
     [    3.587402] pci 0000:04:00.1: reg 0x30: [mem 
0xfffc0000-0xffffffff pref]
     [    3.594483] pci 0000:04:00.1: PME# supported from D0 D3hot D3cold
     [    3.600502] pci 0000:00:1c.5: PCI bridge to [bus 04]

Can the 6 ms – also from your system – be explained by the PCI 
specification? Seeing how fast PCI nowadays is, 6 ms sounds like a long 
time. ;-)

> Faster would always be better, of course.  I assume this is not really
> a regression?

Correct, as far as I know of, this is no regression.

>> [    6.989016] pci 0000:d7:05.0: disabled boot interrupts on device [8086:2034]
>> [    6.996063] PCI: CLS 0 bytes, default 64
>> [    7.000008] Trying to unpack rootfs image as initramfs...
>> [    7.065281] Freeing initrd memory: 5136K

The PCI resource assignment(?) also seems to take 670 ms:

     [    6.319656] pci 0000:04:00.0: can't claim BAR 6 [mem 
0xfffc0000-0xffffffff pref]: no compatible bridge window
     […]
     [    6.989016] pci 0000:d7:05.0: disabled boot interrupts on device 
[8086:2034]

>> […]
>> [    7.079098] DMAR: dmar7: Using Queued invalidation
>> [    7.083983] pci 0000:00:00.0: Adding to iommu group 0
>> […]
>> [    8.537808] pci 0000:d7:17.1: Adding to iommu group 141
> 
> I don't have this iommu stuff turned on and don't know what's
> happening here.

There is a lock in `iommu_group_add_device()` in `drivers/iommu/iommu.c`:

         mutex_lock(&group->mutex);
         list_add_tail(&device->list, &group->devices);
         if (group->domain  && !iommu_is_attach_deferred(group->domain, 
dev))
                 ret = __iommu_attach_device(group->domain, dev);
         mutex_unlock(&group->mutex);

No idea, if it’s related. Unfortunately, it’s a production system, so I 
can’t do any debugging. (Maybe `initcall_debug` could give some 
insight.) Maybe the IOMMU developers can explain it without it. Could 
the IOMMU group assignment be done in parallel?

>> Is there anything that could be done to reduce the time?


Kind regards,

Paul

Powered by blists - more mailing lists