[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YkO7d7Eel4BVQOy4@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 20:07:51 -0600
From: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
To: Tanjore Suresh <tansuresh@...gle.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] Asynchronous shutdown interface and example
implementation
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 04:00:05PM -0700, Tanjore Suresh wrote:
> Problem:
>
> Some of our machines are configured with many NVMe devices and
> are validated for strict shutdown time requirements. Each NVMe
> device plugged into the system, typicaly takes about 4.5 secs
> to shutdown. A system with 16 such NVMe devices will takes
> approximately 80 secs to shutdown and go through reboot.
>
> The current shutdown APIs as defined at bus level is defined to be
> synchronous. Therefore, more devices are in the system the greater
> the time it takes to shutdown. This shutdown time significantly
> contributes the machine reboot time.
>
> Solution:
>
> This patch set proposes an asynchronous shutdown interface at bus level,
> modifies the core driver, device shutdown routine to exploit the
> new interface while maintaining backward compatibility with synchronous
> implementation already existing (Patch 1 of 3) and exploits new interface
> to enable all PCI-E based devices to use asynchronous interface semantics
> if necessary (Patch 2 of 3). The implementation at PCI-E level also works
> in a backward compatible way, to allow exiting device implementation
> to work with current synchronous semantics. Only show cases an example
> implementation for NVMe device to exploit this asynchronous shutdown
> interface. (Patch 3 of 3).
Thanks, I agree we should improve shutdown times. I tried a while ago, but
lost track to follow up at the time. Here's the reference, fwiw, though it
may be out of date :):
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2014-May/000826.html
The above solution is similiar to how probe waits on an async domain.
Maybe pci can schedule the async shutdown instead of relying on low-level
drivers so that everyone implicitly benefits instead of just nvme? I'll
double-check if that's reasonable, but I'll look through this series too.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists