[PATCH] driver/pci: reduce the single block time in pci_read_config

[PATCH] driver/pci: reduce the single block time in pci_read_config

[Jiang Biao]

From: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com>

pci_read_config() could block several ms in kernel space, mainly
caused by the while loop to call pci_user_read_config_dword().
Singel pci_user_read_config_dword() loop could consume 130us+,
              |    pci_user_read_config_dword() {
              |      _raw_spin_lock_irq() {
! 136.698 us  |        native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath();
! 137.582 us  |      }
              |      pci_read() {
              |        raw_pci_read() {
              |          pci_conf1_read() {
  0.230 us    |            _raw_spin_lock_irqsave();
  0.035 us    |            _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore();
  8.476 us    |          }
  8.790 us    |        }
  9.091 us    |      }
! 147.263 us  |    }
and dozens of the loop could consume ms+.

If we execute some lspci commands concurrently, ms+ scheduling
latency could be detected.

Add scheduling chance in the loop to improve the latency.

Reported-by: Bin Lai <robinlai@tencent.com>
Signed-off-by: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com>
---
 drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c b/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c
index 6d78df9..3b9f63d 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c
@@ -708,6 +708,7 @@ static ssize_t pci_read_config(struct file *filp, struct kobject *kobj,
 		data[off - init_off + 3] = (val >> 24) & 0xff;
 		off += 4;
 		size -= 4;
+		cond_resched();
 	}
 
 	if (size >= 2) {
-- 
1.8.3.1

Re: [PATCH] driver/pci: reduce the single block time in pci_read_config

[Jiang Biao]

kindly ping :)

On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 13:20, Jiang Biao <benbjiang@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com>
>
> pci_read_config() could block several ms in kernel space, mainly
> caused by the while loop to call pci_user_read_config_dword().
> Singel pci_user_read_config_dword() loop could consume 130us+,
>               |    pci_user_read_config_dword() {
>               |      _raw_spin_lock_irq() {
> ! 136.698 us  |        native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath();
> ! 137.582 us  |      }
>               |      pci_read() {
>               |        raw_pci_read() {
>               |          pci_conf1_read() {
>   0.230 us    |            _raw_spin_lock_irqsave();
>   0.035 us    |            _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore();
>   8.476 us    |          }
>   8.790 us    |        }
>   9.091 us    |      }
> ! 147.263 us  |    }
> and dozens of the loop could consume ms+.
>
> If we execute some lspci commands concurrently, ms+ scheduling
> latency could be detected.
>
> Add scheduling chance in the loop to improve the latency.
>
> Reported-by: Bin Lai <robinlai@tencent.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c b/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c
> index 6d78df9..3b9f63d 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c
> @@ -708,6 +708,7 @@ static ssize_t pci_read_config(struct file *filp, struct kobject *kobj,
>                 data[off - init_off + 3] = (val >> 24) & 0xff;
>                 off += 4;
>                 size -= 4;
> +               cond_resched();
>         }
>
>         if (size >= 2) {
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>

Re: [PATCH] driver/pci: reduce the single block time in pci_read_config

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 01:20:25PM +0800, Jiang Biao wrote:
> From: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com>
> 
> pci_read_config() could block several ms in kernel space, mainly
> caused by the while loop to call pci_user_read_config_dword().
> Singel pci_user_read_config_dword() loop could consume 130us+,
>               |    pci_user_read_config_dword() {
>               |      _raw_spin_lock_irq() {
> ! 136.698 us  |        native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath();
> ! 137.582 us  |      }
>               |      pci_read() {
>               |        raw_pci_read() {
>               |          pci_conf1_read() {
>   0.230 us    |            _raw_spin_lock_irqsave();
>   0.035 us    |            _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore();
>   8.476 us    |          }
>   8.790 us    |        }
>   9.091 us    |      }
> ! 147.263 us  |    }
> and dozens of the loop could consume ms+.
> 
> If we execute some lspci commands concurrently, ms+ scheduling
> latency could be detected.
> 
> Add scheduling chance in the loop to improve the latency.

Thanks for the patch, this makes a lot of sense.

Shouldn't we do the same in pci_write_config()?

> Reported-by: Bin Lai <robinlai@tencent.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c b/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c
> index 6d78df9..3b9f63d 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c
> @@ -708,6 +708,7 @@ static ssize_t pci_read_config(struct file *filp, struct kobject *kobj,
>  		data[off - init_off + 3] = (val >> 24) & 0xff;
>  		off += 4;
>  		size -= 4;
> +		cond_resched();
>  	}
>  
>  	if (size >= 2) {
> -- 
> 1.8.3.1
> 

Re: [PATCH] driver/pci: reduce the single block time in pci_read_config

[Jiang Biao]

Hi,

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:25, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 01:20:25PM +0800, Jiang Biao wrote:
> > From: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com>
> >
> > pci_read_config() could block several ms in kernel space, mainly
> > caused by the while loop to call pci_user_read_config_dword().
> > Singel pci_user_read_config_dword() loop could consume 130us+,
> >               |    pci_user_read_config_dword() {
> >               |      _raw_spin_lock_irq() {
> > ! 136.698 us  |        native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath();
> > ! 137.582 us  |      }
> >               |      pci_read() {
> >               |        raw_pci_read() {
> >               |          pci_conf1_read() {
> >   0.230 us    |            _raw_spin_lock_irqsave();
> >   0.035 us    |            _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore();
> >   8.476 us    |          }
> >   8.790 us    |        }
> >   9.091 us    |      }
> > ! 147.263 us  |    }
> > and dozens of the loop could consume ms+.
> >
> > If we execute some lspci commands concurrently, ms+ scheduling
> > latency could be detected.
> >
> > Add scheduling chance in the loop to improve the latency.
>
> Thanks for the patch, this makes a lot of sense.
>
> Shouldn't we do the same in pci_write_config()?
Yes, IMHO, that could be helpful too.
I'll send v2 to include that. :)
Thanks a lot for your comment.

Regards,
Jiang

Re: [PATCH] driver/pci: reduce the single block time in pci_read_config

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 09:54:02AM +0800, Jiang Biao wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:25, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 01:20:25PM +0800, Jiang Biao wrote:
> > > From: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com>
> > >
> > > pci_read_config() could block several ms in kernel space, mainly
> > > caused by the while loop to call pci_user_read_config_dword().
> > > Singel pci_user_read_config_dword() loop could consume 130us+,
> > >               |    pci_user_read_config_dword() {
> > >               |      _raw_spin_lock_irq() {
> > > ! 136.698 us  |        native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath();
> > > ! 137.582 us  |      }
> > >               |      pci_read() {
> > >               |        raw_pci_read() {
> > >               |          pci_conf1_read() {
> > >   0.230 us    |            _raw_spin_lock_irqsave();
> > >   0.035 us    |            _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore();
> > >   8.476 us    |          }
> > >   8.790 us    |        }
> > >   9.091 us    |      }
> > > ! 147.263 us  |    }
> > > and dozens of the loop could consume ms+.
> > >
> > > If we execute some lspci commands concurrently, ms+ scheduling
> > > latency could be detected.
> > >
> > > Add scheduling chance in the loop to improve the latency.
> >
> > Thanks for the patch, this makes a lot of sense.
> >
> > Shouldn't we do the same in pci_write_config()?
> Yes, IMHO, that could be helpful too.

If it's feasible, it would be nice to actually verify that it makes a
difference.  I know config writes should be faster than reads, but
they're certainly not as fast as a CPU can pump out data, so there
must be *some* mechanism that slows the CPU down.

Bjorn

Re: [PATCH] driver/pci: reduce the single block time in pci_read_config

[Jiang Biao]

Hi,

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:59, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 09:54:02AM +0800, Jiang Biao wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:25, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 01:20:25PM +0800, Jiang Biao wrote:
> > > > From: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com>
> > > >
> > > > pci_read_config() could block several ms in kernel space, mainly
> > > > caused by the while loop to call pci_user_read_config_dword().
> > > > Singel pci_user_read_config_dword() loop could consume 130us+,
> > > >               |    pci_user_read_config_dword() {
> > > >               |      _raw_spin_lock_irq() {
> > > > ! 136.698 us  |        native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath();
> > > > ! 137.582 us  |      }
> > > >               |      pci_read() {
> > > >               |        raw_pci_read() {
> > > >               |          pci_conf1_read() {
> > > >   0.230 us    |            _raw_spin_lock_irqsave();
> > > >   0.035 us    |            _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore();
> > > >   8.476 us    |          }
> > > >   8.790 us    |        }
> > > >   9.091 us    |      }
> > > > ! 147.263 us  |    }
> > > > and dozens of the loop could consume ms+.
> > > >
> > > > If we execute some lspci commands concurrently, ms+ scheduling
> > > > latency could be detected.
> > > >
> > > > Add scheduling chance in the loop to improve the latency.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the patch, this makes a lot of sense.
> > >
> > > Shouldn't we do the same in pci_write_config()?
> > Yes, IMHO, that could be helpful too.
>
> If it's feasible, it would be nice to actually verify that it makes a
> difference.  I know config writes should be faster than reads, but
> they're certainly not as fast as a CPU can pump out data, so there
> must be *some* mechanism that slows the CPU down.
We did catch 5ms+ latency caused by pci_read_config() triggered by
concurrent lspcis, and latency disappeared after this patch.
For pci_write_config path, we have not met the case actually.:)
I'll have some tries to verify that, and would send another patch if verified.

Thx.
Regards,
Jiang

Re: [PATCH] driver/pci: reduce the single block time in pci_read_config

[Jiang Biao]

Hi, Bjorn

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:59, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 09:54:02AM +0800, Jiang Biao wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:25, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 01:20:25PM +0800, Jiang Biao wrote:
> > > > From: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com>
> > > >
> > > > pci_read_config() could block several ms in kernel space, mainly
> > > > caused by the while loop to call pci_user_read_config_dword().
> > > > Singel pci_user_read_config_dword() loop could consume 130us+,
> > > >               |    pci_user_read_config_dword() {
> > > >               |      _raw_spin_lock_irq() {
> > > > ! 136.698 us  |        native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath();
> > > > ! 137.582 us  |      }
> > > >               |      pci_read() {
> > > >               |        raw_pci_read() {
> > > >               |          pci_conf1_read() {
> > > >   0.230 us    |            _raw_spin_lock_irqsave();
> > > >   0.035 us    |            _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore();
> > > >   8.476 us    |          }
> > > >   8.790 us    |        }
> > > >   9.091 us    |      }
> > > > ! 147.263 us  |    }
> > > > and dozens of the loop could consume ms+.
> > > >
> > > > If we execute some lspci commands concurrently, ms+ scheduling
> > > > latency could be detected.
> > > >
> > > > Add scheduling chance in the loop to improve the latency.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the patch, this makes a lot of sense.
> > >
> > > Shouldn't we do the same in pci_write_config()?
> > Yes, IMHO, that could be helpful too.
>
> If it's feasible, it would be nice to actually verify that it makes a
> difference.  I know config writes should be faster than reads, but
> they're certainly not as fast as a CPU can pump out data, so there
> must be *some* mechanism that slows the CPU down.
>
> Bjorn
We failed to build a test case to produce the latency by setpci command,
AFAIU, setpci could be much less frequently realistically used than lspci.
So, the latency from pci_write_config() path could not be verified for now,
could we apply this patch alone to erase the verified latency introduced
by pci_read_config() path? :)

Thanks a lot.
Regards,
Jiang

Re: [PATCH] driver/pci: reduce the single block time in pci_read_config

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 12:27:09PM +0800, Jiang Biao wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:59, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 09:54:02AM +0800, Jiang Biao wrote:
> > > On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:25, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 01:20:25PM +0800, Jiang Biao wrote:
> > > > > From: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > pci_read_config() could block several ms in kernel space, mainly
> > > > > caused by the while loop to call pci_user_read_config_dword().
> > > > > Singel pci_user_read_config_dword() loop could consume 130us+,
> > > > >               |    pci_user_read_config_dword() {
> > > > >               |      _raw_spin_lock_irq() {
> > > > > ! 136.698 us  |        native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath();
> > > > > ! 137.582 us  |      }
> > > > >               |      pci_read() {
> > > > >               |        raw_pci_read() {
> > > > >               |          pci_conf1_read() {
> > > > >   0.230 us    |            _raw_spin_lock_irqsave();
> > > > >   0.035 us    |            _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore();
> > > > >   8.476 us    |          }
> > > > >   8.790 us    |        }
> > > > >   9.091 us    |      }
> > > > > ! 147.263 us  |    }
> > > > > and dozens of the loop could consume ms+.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we execute some lspci commands concurrently, ms+ scheduling
> > > > > latency could be detected.
> > > > >
> > > > > Add scheduling chance in the loop to improve the latency.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the patch, this makes a lot of sense.
> > > >
> > > > Shouldn't we do the same in pci_write_config()?
> > >
> > > Yes, IMHO, that could be helpful too.
> >
> > If it's feasible, it would be nice to actually verify that it makes a
> > difference.  I know config writes should be faster than reads, but
> > they're certainly not as fast as a CPU can pump out data, so there
> > must be *some* mechanism that slows the CPU down.
> >
> We failed to build a test case to produce the latency by setpci command,
> AFAIU, setpci could be much less frequently realistically used than lspci.
> So, the latency from pci_write_config() path could not be verified for now,
> could we apply this patch alone to erase the verified latency introduced
> by pci_read_config() path? :)

Thanks for trying!  I'll apply the patch as-is.  I'd like to include a
note in the commit log about the user-visible effect of this.  I
looked through recent similar commits:

  928da37a229f ("RDMA/umem: Add a schedule point in ib_umem_get()")
  47aaabdedf36 ("fanotify: Avoid softlockups when reading many events")
  9f47eb5461aa ("fs/btrfs: Add cond_resched() for try_release_extent_mapping() stalls")
  0a3b3c253a1e ("mm/mmap.c: Add cond_resched() for exit_mmap() CPU stalls")
  b7e3debdd040 ("mm/memory_hotplug.c: fix false softlockup during pfn range removal")
  d35bd764e689 ("dm writecache: add cond_resched to loop in persistent_memory_claim()")
  da97f2d56bbd ("mm: call cond_resched() from deferred_init_memmap()")
  ab8b65be1831 ("KVM: PPC: Book3S: Fix some RCU-list locks")
  48c963e31bc6 ("KVM: arm/arm64: Release kvm->mmu_lock in loop to prevent starvation")
  e84fe99b68ce ("mm/page_alloc: fix watchdog soft lockups during set_zone_contiguous()")
  4005f5c3c9d0 ("wireguard: send/receive: cond_resched() when processing worker ringbuffers")
  3fd44c86711f ("io_uring: use cond_resched() in io_ring_ctx_wait_and_kill()")
  7979457b1d3a ("net: bridge: vlan: Add a schedule point during VLAN processing")
  2ed6edd33a21 ("perf: Add cond_resched() to task_function_call()")
  1edaa447d958 ("dm writecache: add cond_resched to avoid CPU hangs")
  ce9a4186f9ac ("macvlan: add cond_resched() during multicast processing")
  7be1b9b8e9d1 ("drm/mm: Break long searches in fragmented address spaces")
  bb699a793110 ("drm/i915/gem: Break up long lists of object reclaim")
  9424ef56e13a ("ext4: add cond_resched() to __ext4_find_entry()")

and many of them mention softlockups, RCU CPU stall warnings, or
watchdogs triggering.  Are you seeing one of those, or are you
measuring latency some other way?

Bjorn

Re: [PATCH] driver/pci: reduce the single block time in pci_read_config

[Jiang Biao]

Hi,

On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 00:56, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 12:27:09PM +0800, Jiang Biao wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:59, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 09:54:02AM +0800, Jiang Biao wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:25, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 01:20:25PM +0800, Jiang Biao wrote:
> > > > > > From: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > pci_read_config() could block several ms in kernel space, mainly
> > > > > > caused by the while loop to call pci_user_read_config_dword().
> > > > > > Singel pci_user_read_config_dword() loop could consume 130us+,
> > > > > >               |    pci_user_read_config_dword() {
> > > > > >               |      _raw_spin_lock_irq() {
> > > > > > ! 136.698 us  |        native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath();
> > > > > > ! 137.582 us  |      }
> > > > > >               |      pci_read() {
> > > > > >               |        raw_pci_read() {
> > > > > >               |          pci_conf1_read() {
> > > > > >   0.230 us    |            _raw_spin_lock_irqsave();
> > > > > >   0.035 us    |            _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore();
> > > > > >   8.476 us    |          }
> > > > > >   8.790 us    |        }
> > > > > >   9.091 us    |      }
> > > > > > ! 147.263 us  |    }
> > > > > > and dozens of the loop could consume ms+.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we execute some lspci commands concurrently, ms+ scheduling
> > > > > > latency could be detected.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Add scheduling chance in the loop to improve the latency.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the patch, this makes a lot of sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Shouldn't we do the same in pci_write_config()?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, IMHO, that could be helpful too.
> > >
> > > If it's feasible, it would be nice to actually verify that it makes a
> > > difference.  I know config writes should be faster than reads, but
> > > they're certainly not as fast as a CPU can pump out data, so there
> > > must be *some* mechanism that slows the CPU down.
> > >
> > We failed to build a test case to produce the latency by setpci command,
> > AFAIU, setpci could be much less frequently realistically used than lspci.
> > So, the latency from pci_write_config() path could not be verified for now,
> > could we apply this patch alone to erase the verified latency introduced
> > by pci_read_config() path? :)
>
> Thanks for trying!  I'll apply the patch as-is.  I'd like to include a
Thanks. :)

> note in the commit log about the user-visible effect of this.  I
> looked through recent similar commits:
>
>   928da37a229f ("RDMA/umem: Add a schedule point in ib_umem_get()")
>   47aaabdedf36 ("fanotify: Avoid softlockups when reading many events")
>   9f47eb5461aa ("fs/btrfs: Add cond_resched() for try_release_extent_mapping() stalls")
>   0a3b3c253a1e ("mm/mmap.c: Add cond_resched() for exit_mmap() CPU stalls")
>   b7e3debdd040 ("mm/memory_hotplug.c: fix false softlockup during pfn range removal")
>   d35bd764e689 ("dm writecache: add cond_resched to loop in persistent_memory_claim()")
>   da97f2d56bbd ("mm: call cond_resched() from deferred_init_memmap()")
>   ab8b65be1831 ("KVM: PPC: Book3S: Fix some RCU-list locks")
>   48c963e31bc6 ("KVM: arm/arm64: Release kvm->mmu_lock in loop to prevent starvation")
>   e84fe99b68ce ("mm/page_alloc: fix watchdog soft lockups during set_zone_contiguous()")
>   4005f5c3c9d0 ("wireguard: send/receive: cond_resched() when processing worker ringbuffers")
>   3fd44c86711f ("io_uring: use cond_resched() in io_ring_ctx_wait_and_kill()")
>   7979457b1d3a ("net: bridge: vlan: Add a schedule point during VLAN processing")
>   2ed6edd33a21 ("perf: Add cond_resched() to task_function_call()")
>   1edaa447d958 ("dm writecache: add cond_resched to avoid CPU hangs")
>   ce9a4186f9ac ("macvlan: add cond_resched() during multicast processing")
>   7be1b9b8e9d1 ("drm/mm: Break long searches in fragmented address spaces")
>   bb699a793110 ("drm/i915/gem: Break up long lists of object reclaim")
>   9424ef56e13a ("ext4: add cond_resched() to __ext4_find_entry()")
>
> and many of them mention softlockups, RCU CPU stall warnings, or
> watchdogs triggering.  Are you seeing one of those, or are you
No softlockup or RCU stall warnings.

> measuring latency some other way?
We test the scheduling latency by cyclictest benchmark, the max
latency could be more than 5ms without this patch. The ftrace log
shows pci_read_config is the main cause, and the 5ms+ latency
disappeared with this patch applied.

Thanks a lot.
Regards,
Jiang

Re: [PATCH] driver/pci: reduce the single block time in pci_read_config

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 01:20:25PM +0800, Jiang Biao wrote:
> From: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com>
> 
> pci_read_config() could block several ms in kernel space, mainly
> caused by the while loop to call pci_user_read_config_dword().
> Singel pci_user_read_config_dword() loop could consume 130us+,
>               |    pci_user_read_config_dword() {
>               |      _raw_spin_lock_irq() {
> ! 136.698 us  |        native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath();
> ! 137.582 us  |      }
>               |      pci_read() {
>               |        raw_pci_read() {
>               |          pci_conf1_read() {
>   0.230 us    |            _raw_spin_lock_irqsave();
>   0.035 us    |            _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore();
>   8.476 us    |          }
>   8.790 us    |        }
>   9.091 us    |      }
> ! 147.263 us  |    }
> and dozens of the loop could consume ms+.
> 
> If we execute some lspci commands concurrently, ms+ scheduling
> latency could be detected.
> 
> Add scheduling chance in the loop to improve the latency.
> 
> Reported-by: Bin Lai <robinlai@tencent.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@tencent.com>

Applied to pci/enumeration for v5.10, thanks!

> ---
>  drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c b/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c
> index 6d78df9..3b9f63d 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c
> @@ -708,6 +708,7 @@ static ssize_t pci_read_config(struct file *filp, struct kobject *kobj,
>  		data[off - init_off + 3] = (val >> 24) & 0xff;
>  		off += 4;
>  		size -= 4;
> +		cond_resched();
>  	}
>  
>  	if (size >= 2) {
> -- 
> 1.8.3.1
>