| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hRzeq201Wt98TdPp6k90Z4J5+eMmibsCXXugGKXzAknA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 12:37:37 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: scan: Reduce overhead related to devices with dependencies
Hi Hans,
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 12:33 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On 5/16/23 12:25, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH] ACPI: scan: Reduce overhead related to devices with dependencies
> >
> > Notice that all of the objects for which the acpi_scan_check_dep()
> > return value is greater than 0 are present in acpi_dep_list as consumers
> > (there may be multiple entries for one object, but that is not a
> > problem), so after carrying out the initial ACPI namespace walk in which
> > devices with dependencies are skipped, acpi_bus_scan() can simply walk
> > acpi_dep_list and enumerate all of the unique consumer objects from
> > there and their descendants instead of walking the entire target branch
> > of the ACPI namespace and looking for device objects that have not been
> > enumerated yet in it.
> >
> > Because walking acpi_dep_list is generally less overhead than walking
> > the entire ACPI namespace, use the observation above to reduce the
> > system initialization overhead related to ACPI, which is particularly
> > important on large systems.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > ---
> >
> > -> v2: Hold acpi_dep_list_lock around the acpi_fetch_acpi_dev() invocation in
> > acpi_scan_postponed() (Hans).
>
> This looks good to me now:
>
> Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
>
> with the remark that this obviously is going to need a lot
> of testing in case this somehow breaks some weird corner case.
>
> I'll add it to my personal git kernel tree with all my
> pending work right away, so that it will get tested on
> various devices as I test other patches on those devices.
>
> I'll let you know if I hit any problems which seem to be
> caused by this.
Awesome, thanks!
> >
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/scan.c | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> > include/acpi/acpi_bus.h | 2 +
> > 2 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-pm/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> > +++ linux-pm/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> > @@ -289,6 +289,8 @@ struct acpi_dep_data {
> > acpi_handle supplier;
> > acpi_handle consumer;
> > bool honor_dep;
> > + bool met;
> > + bool free_when_met;
> > };
> >
> > /* Performance Management */
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > @@ -2029,8 +2029,6 @@ static u32 acpi_scan_check_dep(acpi_hand
> > return count;
> > }
> >
> > -static bool acpi_bus_scan_second_pass;
> > -
> > static acpi_status acpi_bus_check_add(acpi_handle handle, bool check_dep,
> > struct acpi_device **adev_p)
> > {
> > @@ -2050,10 +2048,8 @@ static acpi_status acpi_bus_check_add(ac
> > return AE_OK;
> >
> > /* Bail out if there are dependencies. */
> > - if (acpi_scan_check_dep(handle, check_dep) > 0) {
> > - acpi_bus_scan_second_pass = true;
> > + if (acpi_scan_check_dep(handle, check_dep) > 0)
> > return AE_CTRL_DEPTH;
> > - }
> >
> > fallthrough;
> > case ACPI_TYPE_ANY: /* for ACPI_ROOT_OBJECT */
> > @@ -2301,6 +2297,12 @@ static bool acpi_scan_clear_dep_queue(st
> > return true;
> > }
> >
> > +static void acpi_scan_delete_dep_data(struct acpi_dep_data *dep)
> > +{
> > + list_del(&dep->node);
> > + kfree(dep);
> > +}
> > +
> > static int acpi_scan_clear_dep(struct acpi_dep_data *dep, void *data)
> > {
> > struct acpi_device *adev = acpi_get_acpi_dev(dep->consumer);
> > @@ -2311,8 +2313,10 @@ static int acpi_scan_clear_dep(struct ac
> > acpi_dev_put(adev);
> > }
> >
> > - list_del(&dep->node);
> > - kfree(dep);
> > + if (dep->free_when_met)
> > + acpi_scan_delete_dep_data(dep);
> > + else
> > + dep->met = true;
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> > @@ -2406,6 +2410,55 @@ struct acpi_device *acpi_dev_get_next_co
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_dev_get_next_consumer_dev);
> >
> > +static void acpi_scan_postponed_branch(acpi_handle handle)
> > +{
> > + struct acpi_device *adev = NULL;
> > +
> > + if (ACPI_FAILURE(acpi_bus_check_add(handle, false, &adev)))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + acpi_walk_namespace(ACPI_TYPE_ANY, handle, ACPI_UINT32_MAX,
> > + acpi_bus_check_add_2, NULL, NULL, (void **)&adev);
> > + acpi_bus_attach(adev, NULL);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void acpi_scan_postponed(void)
> > +{
> > + struct acpi_dep_data *dep, *tmp;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&acpi_dep_list_lock);
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry_safe(dep, tmp, &acpi_dep_list, node) {
> > + acpi_handle handle = dep->consumer;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * In case there are multiple acpi_dep_list entries with the
> > + * same consumer, skip the current entry if the consumer device
> > + * object corresponding to it is present already.
> > + */
> > + if (!acpi_fetch_acpi_dev(handle)) {
> > + /*
> > + * Even though the lock is released here, tmp is
> > + * guaranteed to be valid, because none of the list
> > + * entries following dep is marked as "free when met"
> > + * and so they cannot be deleted.
> > + */
> > + mutex_unlock(&acpi_dep_list_lock);
> > +
> > + acpi_scan_postponed_branch(handle);
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&acpi_dep_list_lock);
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (dep->met)
> > + acpi_scan_delete_dep_data(dep);
> > + else
> > + dep->free_when_met = true;
> > + }
> > +
> > + mutex_unlock(&acpi_dep_list_lock);
> > +}
> > +
> > /**
> > * acpi_bus_scan - Add ACPI device node objects in a given namespace scope.
> > * @handle: Root of the namespace scope to scan.
> > @@ -2424,8 +2477,6 @@ int acpi_bus_scan(acpi_handle handle)
> > {
> > struct acpi_device *device = NULL;
> >
> > - acpi_bus_scan_second_pass = false;
> > -
> > /* Pass 1: Avoid enumerating devices with missing dependencies. */
> >
> > if (ACPI_SUCCESS(acpi_bus_check_add(handle, true, &device)))
> > @@ -2438,19 +2489,9 @@ int acpi_bus_scan(acpi_handle handle)
> >
> > acpi_bus_attach(device, (void *)true);
> >
> > - if (!acpi_bus_scan_second_pass)
> > - return 0;
> > -
> > /* Pass 2: Enumerate all of the remaining devices. */
> >
> > - device = NULL;
> > -
> > - if (ACPI_SUCCESS(acpi_bus_check_add(handle, false, &device)))
> > - acpi_walk_namespace(ACPI_TYPE_ANY, handle, ACPI_UINT32_MAX,
> > - acpi_bus_check_add_2, NULL, NULL,
> > - (void **)&device);
> > -
> > - acpi_bus_attach(device, NULL);
> > + acpi_scan_postponed();
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> >
> >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists