Hi Greg K-H,

On 2017-04-25 19:36, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 04:43:33PM +0800, weili@codeaurora.org wrote:
>> Hi Greg K-H,
>> 
>> On 2017-04-24 16:46, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> 
>> > And does it really reduce boot time? What are the numbers?
>>   Yes, it really reduce boot time. After making most time-consuming 
>> platform
>> driver using async probe
>>   and also applying this patch, we see the driver run in parallel with
>> others and saving 140ms.
> 
> And why wasn't that information in the initial commit message?
> 
> And how much of a % is 140ms?  Why is a single driver taking that long
> to initialize itself?
The kernel took 1.72 seconds to boot to run the first init program. 
140ms is 8% improvement.
140ms is long for a single driver initialize. We are in discussion with 
the driver owner
about optimization.

>> > What does the boot graph look like when you run with and without this
>> > patch?
>>   Without the patch, the boot graph is like this:
>>     CPU0: platform driver1 probe -> lock parent -> do probe staff -> 
>> unlock
>> parent -> probe finish
>>     CPU1: platform driver2 probe ->                wait for lock on 
>> parent
>> -> lock parent -> do probe -> unlock parent -> probe finish
>> 
>>   With the patch, the boot graph is like this:
>>     CPU0: platform driver1 probe -> do probe staff -> probe finish
>>     CPU1: platform drvier2 probe -> do probe staff -> probe finish
> 
> No, I mean the boot graph in pretty .svg format that the kernel can
> output, with times and processes and everything.  Look in the tools
> directory for more information, it will give you the exact timing for
> your change before and after and show you exactly where you are taking
> long periods of time.
> 
> You did use that, or something else to measure this somehow, right?
> 
The boot graph is in the attachment. The function msm_sharedmem_init 
took
long time because it is blocked by another async probe driver. After
applying the patch, msm_sharedmem_init is no longer blocked.

>> > Why is the platform bus so "special" to warrant this?  Should we perhaps
>> > make this
>> > an option for any bus to enable/disable?
>>   The lock on parent was first introduced by USB guys in following 
>> commit
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/commit/drivers/base/dd.c?id=bf74ad5bc41727d5f2f1c6bedb2c1fac394de731
>>   This may be useful for real bus devices such as USB and they think
>> overhead of acquiring a lock is not large.
>>   But since platfrom bus is virtual, the lock is not necessary. 
>> Removing it
>> for platform devices will make
>>   driver running in parallel and benefit boot time.
> 
> I know all about USB here :)
> 
> You did not answer my questions :(
> 
Do you suggest that we add some varible like "async_probe" in struct 
bus_type and
then check the varible during probe to decide whether to lock the 
parent?

Best Regards
Wei