All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com
Cc: "Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com>,
	Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
	jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	zwisler@kernel.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 3/5] driver core: Probe devices asynchronously instead of the driver
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 19:48:42 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4hQJo9HvCw70p+Qnpcg40x=mOsnLvsd1asGc0GD8EP6Sg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <021d55fb-9f6a-0b52-3513-e9c5493bd7d7@linux.intel.com>

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 8:31 AM Alexander Duyck
<alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/26/2018 5:48 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 2:51 PM Alexander Duyck
> > <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> This change makes it so that we probe devices asynchronously instead of the
> >> driver. This results in us seeing the same behavior if the device is
> >> registered before the driver or after. This way we can avoid serializing
> >> the initialization should the driver not be loaded until after the devices
> >> have already been added.
> >>
> >> The motivation behind this is that if we have a set of devices that
> >> take a significant amount of time to load we can greatly reduce the time to
> >> load by processing them in parallel instead of one at a time. In addition,
> >> each device can exist on a different node so placing a single thread on one
> >> CPU to initialize all of the devices for a given driver can result in poor
> >> performance on a system with multiple nodes.
> >>
> >> One issue I can see with this patch is that I am using the
> >> dev_set/get_drvdata functions to store the driver in the device while I am
> >> waiting on the asynchronous init to complete. For now I am protecting it by
> >> using the lack of a dev->driver and the device lock.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
> > [..]
> >> @@ -891,6 +914,25 @@ static int __driver_attach(struct device *dev, void *data)
> >>                  return ret;
> >>          } /* ret > 0 means positive match */
> >>
> >> +       if (driver_allows_async_probing(drv)) {
> >> +               /*
> >> +                * Instead of probing the device synchronously we will
> >> +                * probe it asynchronously to allow for more parallelism.
> >> +                *
> >> +                * We only take the device lock here in order to guarantee
> >> +                * that the dev->driver and driver_data fields are protected
> >> +                */
> >> +               dev_dbg(dev, "scheduling asynchronous probe\n");
> >> +               device_lock(dev);
> >> +               if (!dev->driver) {
> >> +                       get_device(dev);
> >> +                       dev_set_drvdata(dev, drv);
> >> +                       async_schedule(__driver_attach_async_helper, dev);
> >
> > I'm not sure async drivers / sub-systems are ready for their devices
> > to show up in parallel. While userspace should not be relying on
> > kernel device names, people get upset when devices change kernel names
> > from one boot to the next, and I can see this change leading to that
> > scenario.
>
> The thing is the current async behavior already does this if the driver
> is loaded before the device is added. All I am doing is making the
> behavior with the driver loaded first the standard instead of letting it
> work the other way around. This way we get consistent behavior.

Ok, I can see the consistency argument. It's still a behavior change
that needs testing. Configurations that have been living with the
default of synchronous probing of the devices on the bus for a later
arriving driver might be surprised.

That said, I was confusing async probing with device registration in
my thinking, so some of the discovery order / naming concerns may not
be as bad as I was imagining. Sub-systems that would be broken by this
behavior change would already be broken if a driver is built-in vs
module.

So, consider this, an Acked-by.

> > If a driver / sub-system wants more parallelism than what
> > driver_allows_async_probing() provides it should do it locally, for
> > example, like libata does.
>
> So where I actually saw this was with the pmem legacy setup I had. After
> doing all the work to parallelize things in the driver it had no effect.
> That was because the nd_pmem driver wasn't loaded yet so all the
> device_add calls did is add the device but didn't attach the nd_pmem
> driver. Then when the driver loaded it serialized the probe calls
> resulting in it taking twice as long as it needed to in order to
> initialize the memory.
>
> This seems to affect standard persistent memory as well. The only
> difference is that instead of probing the device on the first pass we
> kick it back and reprobe it in nd_pmem_probe/nd_pfn_probe in order to
> set the correct personality and that in turn allows us to asynchronously
> reschedule the work on the correct CPU and deserialize it.

I don't see any problems with this series with the nvdimm unit tests,
but note those tests do not check for discovery order / naming
discrepancies.
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com
Cc: linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com>,
	Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
	jiangshanlai@gmail.com, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	zwisler@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 3/5] driver core: Probe devices asynchronously instead of the driver
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 19:48:42 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4hQJo9HvCw70p+Qnpcg40x=mOsnLvsd1asGc0GD8EP6Sg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <021d55fb-9f6a-0b52-3513-e9c5493bd7d7@linux.intel.com>

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 8:31 AM Alexander Duyck
<alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/26/2018 5:48 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 2:51 PM Alexander Duyck
> > <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> This change makes it so that we probe devices asynchronously instead of the
> >> driver. This results in us seeing the same behavior if the device is
> >> registered before the driver or after. This way we can avoid serializing
> >> the initialization should the driver not be loaded until after the devices
> >> have already been added.
> >>
> >> The motivation behind this is that if we have a set of devices that
> >> take a significant amount of time to load we can greatly reduce the time to
> >> load by processing them in parallel instead of one at a time. In addition,
> >> each device can exist on a different node so placing a single thread on one
> >> CPU to initialize all of the devices for a given driver can result in poor
> >> performance on a system with multiple nodes.
> >>
> >> One issue I can see with this patch is that I am using the
> >> dev_set/get_drvdata functions to store the driver in the device while I am
> >> waiting on the asynchronous init to complete. For now I am protecting it by
> >> using the lack of a dev->driver and the device lock.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
> > [..]
> >> @@ -891,6 +914,25 @@ static int __driver_attach(struct device *dev, void *data)
> >>                  return ret;
> >>          } /* ret > 0 means positive match */
> >>
> >> +       if (driver_allows_async_probing(drv)) {
> >> +               /*
> >> +                * Instead of probing the device synchronously we will
> >> +                * probe it asynchronously to allow for more parallelism.
> >> +                *
> >> +                * We only take the device lock here in order to guarantee
> >> +                * that the dev->driver and driver_data fields are protected
> >> +                */
> >> +               dev_dbg(dev, "scheduling asynchronous probe\n");
> >> +               device_lock(dev);
> >> +               if (!dev->driver) {
> >> +                       get_device(dev);
> >> +                       dev_set_drvdata(dev, drv);
> >> +                       async_schedule(__driver_attach_async_helper, dev);
> >
> > I'm not sure async drivers / sub-systems are ready for their devices
> > to show up in parallel. While userspace should not be relying on
> > kernel device names, people get upset when devices change kernel names
> > from one boot to the next, and I can see this change leading to that
> > scenario.
>
> The thing is the current async behavior already does this if the driver
> is loaded before the device is added. All I am doing is making the
> behavior with the driver loaded first the standard instead of letting it
> work the other way around. This way we get consistent behavior.

Ok, I can see the consistency argument. It's still a behavior change
that needs testing. Configurations that have been living with the
default of synchronous probing of the devices on the bus for a later
arriving driver might be surprised.

That said, I was confusing async probing with device registration in
my thinking, so some of the discovery order / naming concerns may not
be as bad as I was imagining. Sub-systems that would be broken by this
behavior change would already be broken if a driver is built-in vs
module.

So, consider this, an Acked-by.

> > If a driver / sub-system wants more parallelism than what
> > driver_allows_async_probing() provides it should do it locally, for
> > example, like libata does.
>
> So where I actually saw this was with the pmem legacy setup I had. After
> doing all the work to parallelize things in the driver it had no effect.
> That was because the nd_pmem driver wasn't loaded yet so all the
> device_add calls did is add the device but didn't attach the nd_pmem
> driver. Then when the driver loaded it serialized the probe calls
> resulting in it taking twice as long as it needed to in order to
> initialize the memory.
>
> This seems to affect standard persistent memory as well. The only
> difference is that instead of probing the device on the first pass we
> kick it back and reprobe it in nd_pmem_probe/nd_pfn_probe in order to
> set the correct personality and that in turn allows us to asynchronously
> reschedule the work on the correct CPU and deserialize it.

I don't see any problems with this series with the nvdimm unit tests,
but note those tests do not check for discovery order / naming
discrepancies.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: alexander.h.duyck-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org
Cc: "Brown, Len" <len.brown-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	Linux-pm mailing list
	<linux-pm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	Greg KH
	<gregkh-hQyY1W1yCW8ekmWlsbkhG0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>,
	linux-nvdimm
	<linux-nvdimm-hn68Rpc1hR1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>,
	jiangshanlai-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List
	<linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	zwisler-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
	Pavel Machek <pavel-+ZI9xUNit7I@public.gmane.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
	Andrew Morton
	<akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki"
	<rafael-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 3/5] driver core: Probe devices asynchronously instead of the driver
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 19:48:42 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4hQJo9HvCw70p+Qnpcg40x=mOsnLvsd1asGc0GD8EP6Sg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <021d55fb-9f6a-0b52-3513-e9c5493bd7d7-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 8:31 AM Alexander Duyck
<alexander.h.duyck-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/26/2018 5:48 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 2:51 PM Alexander Duyck
> > <alexander.h.duyck-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> This change makes it so that we probe devices asynchronously instead of the
> >> driver. This results in us seeing the same behavior if the device is
> >> registered before the driver or after. This way we can avoid serializing
> >> the initialization should the driver not be loaded until after the devices
> >> have already been added.
> >>
> >> The motivation behind this is that if we have a set of devices that
> >> take a significant amount of time to load we can greatly reduce the time to
> >> load by processing them in parallel instead of one at a time. In addition,
> >> each device can exist on a different node so placing a single thread on one
> >> CPU to initialize all of the devices for a given driver can result in poor
> >> performance on a system with multiple nodes.
> >>
> >> One issue I can see with this patch is that I am using the
> >> dev_set/get_drvdata functions to store the driver in the device while I am
> >> waiting on the asynchronous init to complete. For now I am protecting it by
> >> using the lack of a dev->driver and the device lock.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>
> > [..]
> >> @@ -891,6 +914,25 @@ static int __driver_attach(struct device *dev, void *data)
> >>                  return ret;
> >>          } /* ret > 0 means positive match */
> >>
> >> +       if (driver_allows_async_probing(drv)) {
> >> +               /*
> >> +                * Instead of probing the device synchronously we will
> >> +                * probe it asynchronously to allow for more parallelism.
> >> +                *
> >> +                * We only take the device lock here in order to guarantee
> >> +                * that the dev->driver and driver_data fields are protected
> >> +                */
> >> +               dev_dbg(dev, "scheduling asynchronous probe\n");
> >> +               device_lock(dev);
> >> +               if (!dev->driver) {
> >> +                       get_device(dev);
> >> +                       dev_set_drvdata(dev, drv);
> >> +                       async_schedule(__driver_attach_async_helper, dev);
> >
> > I'm not sure async drivers / sub-systems are ready for their devices
> > to show up in parallel. While userspace should not be relying on
> > kernel device names, people get upset when devices change kernel names
> > from one boot to the next, and I can see this change leading to that
> > scenario.
>
> The thing is the current async behavior already does this if the driver
> is loaded before the device is added. All I am doing is making the
> behavior with the driver loaded first the standard instead of letting it
> work the other way around. This way we get consistent behavior.

Ok, I can see the consistency argument. It's still a behavior change
that needs testing. Configurations that have been living with the
default of synchronous probing of the devices on the bus for a later
arriving driver might be surprised.

That said, I was confusing async probing with device registration in
my thinking, so some of the discovery order / naming concerns may not
be as bad as I was imagining. Sub-systems that would be broken by this
behavior change would already be broken if a driver is built-in vs
module.

So, consider this, an Acked-by.

> > If a driver / sub-system wants more parallelism than what
> > driver_allows_async_probing() provides it should do it locally, for
> > example, like libata does.
>
> So where I actually saw this was with the pmem legacy setup I had. After
> doing all the work to parallelize things in the driver it had no effect.
> That was because the nd_pmem driver wasn't loaded yet so all the
> device_add calls did is add the device but didn't attach the nd_pmem
> driver. Then when the driver loaded it serialized the probe calls
> resulting in it taking twice as long as it needed to in order to
> initialize the memory.
>
> This seems to affect standard persistent memory as well. The only
> difference is that instead of probing the device on the first pass we
> kick it back and reprobe it in nd_pmem_probe/nd_pfn_probe in order to
> set the correct personality and that in turn allows us to asynchronously
> reschedule the work on the correct CPU and deserialize it.

I don't see any problems with this series with the nvdimm unit tests,
but note those tests do not check for discovery order / naming
discrepancies.

  reply	other threads:[~2018-09-28  2:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 69+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-09-26 21:51 [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 0/5] Add NUMA aware async_schedule calls Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51 ` [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 1/5] workqueue: Provide queue_work_near to queue work near a given NUMA node Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:53   ` Tejun Heo
2018-09-26 21:53     ` Tejun Heo
2018-09-26 21:53     ` Tejun Heo
2018-09-26 22:05     ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 22:05       ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 22:09       ` Tejun Heo
2018-09-26 22:09         ` Tejun Heo
2018-09-26 22:09         ` Tejun Heo
2018-09-26 22:19         ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 22:19           ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-01 16:01           ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-01 16:01             ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-01 16:01             ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-01 21:54             ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-01 21:54               ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-01 21:54               ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-02 17:41               ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-02 17:41                 ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-02 17:41                 ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-02 18:23                 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-02 18:23                   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-02 18:23                   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-02 18:41                   ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-02 18:41                     ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-02 18:41                     ` Tejun Heo
2018-10-02 20:49                     ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-02 20:49                       ` Alexander Duyck
2018-10-02 20:49                       ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51 ` [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 2/5] async: Add support for queueing on specific " Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27  0:31   ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27  0:31     ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27  0:31     ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27 15:16     ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27 15:16       ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27 15:16       ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27 19:48       ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27 19:48         ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27 20:03         ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27 20:03           ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51 ` [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 3/5] driver core: Probe devices asynchronously instead of the driver Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27  0:48   ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27  0:48     ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27  0:48     ` Dan Williams
2018-09-27 15:27     ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27 15:27       ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-27 15:27       ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-28  2:48       ` Dan Williams [this message]
2018-09-28  2:48         ` Dan Williams
2018-09-28  2:48         ` Dan Williams
2018-09-26 21:51 ` [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 4/5] driver core: Use new async_schedule_dev command Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:51   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-28 17:42   ` Dan Williams
2018-09-28 17:42     ` Dan Williams
2018-09-28 17:42     ` Dan Williams
2018-09-26 21:52 ` [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 5/5] nvdimm: Schedule device registration on node local to the device Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:52   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-26 21:52   ` Alexander Duyck
2018-09-28 17:46   ` Dan Williams
2018-09-28 17:46     ` Dan Williams

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAPcyv4hQJo9HvCw70p+Qnpcg40x=mOsnLvsd1asGc0GD8EP6Sg@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
    --cc=len.brown@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=zwisler@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [RFC workqueue/driver-core PATCH 3/5] driver core: Probe devices asynchronously instead of the driver' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.