[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3b626936ccc4d5123cb9113378bec6f77182def3.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2023 08:28:34 +0000
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Russ Anderson <rja@....com>, Usama Arif <usama.arif@...edance.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, arjan@...ux.intel.com, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com,
x86@...nel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com, paulmck@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
rcu@...r.kernel.org, mimoja@...oja.de, hewenliang4@...wei.com,
thomas.lendacky@....com, seanjc@...gle.com, pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de,
fam.zheng@...edance.com, punit.agrawal@...edance.com,
simon.evans@...edance.com, liangma@...ngbit.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] Parallel CPU bringup for x86_64
On Sun, 2023-02-05 at 13:17 -0600, Russ Anderson wrote:
>
> Gave the v6 patchset a try on a system with 1920 logocal cpus
> (sixteen 60 core Sapphire Rapids sockets with Hyperthreadding
> enabled).
>
> Without the patchset it took 71 seconds to start all the cpus.
> With the v6 patchset it took 14 seconds to start all the cpus,
> a reduction of 57 seconds. That is impressive.
>
> Full boot, to root login prompt, without patches takes 223 seconds.
> This patchset reduces the full boot time by 57 seconds, a 25%
> reduction.
Nice; thanks for testing.
Is that with just the "part1" patch series which has been posted, or
also with the 'parallel part 2' still taking shape in the tree at
https://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/linux.git/shortlog/refs/heads/parallel-6.2-rc6
I believe Usama said the second phase of parallelism didn't really help
much in terms of overall timing? Confirming that *without* all the
debug prints would be interesting. And we can look for what still
*could* be made parallel.
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (5965 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists