From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A4172117CE94 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2018 15:27:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [driver-core PATCH v6 2/9] async: Add support for queueing on specific NUMA node References: <154170028986.12967.2108024712555179678.stgit@ahduyck-desk1.jf.intel.com> <154170041079.12967.13132220574997822111.stgit@ahduyck-desk1.jf.intel.com> <20181111193208.GB8332@kroah.com> <20181111203541.GB16871@kroah.com> From: Alexander Duyck Message-ID: <77b6544a-2a32-b8a4-3f3f-575193f04302@linux.intel.com> Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 15:27:32 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181111203541.GB16871@kroah.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: linux-nvdimm-bounces@lists.01.org Sender: "Linux-nvdimm" To: Greg KH , Dan Williams Cc: "Brown, Len" , bvanassche@acm.org, Linux-pm mailing list , linux-nvdimm , jiangshanlai@gmail.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Pavel Machek , zwisler@kernel.org, Tejun Heo , Andrew Morton , "Rafael J. Wysocki" List-ID: On 11/11/2018 12:35 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 11:53:20AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 11:32 AM Greg KH wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 10:06:50AM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: >>>> Introduce four new variants of the async_schedule_ functions that allow >>>> scheduling on a specific NUMA node. >>>> >>>> The first two functions are async_schedule_near and >>>> async_schedule_near_domain end up mapping to async_schedule and >>>> async_schedule_domain, but provide NUMA node specific functionality. They >>>> replace the original functions which were moved to inline function >>>> definitions that call the new functions while passing NUMA_NO_NODE. >>>> >>>> The second two functions are async_schedule_dev and >>>> async_schedule_dev_domain which provide NUMA specific functionality when >>>> passing a device as the data member and that device has a NUMA node other >>>> than NUMA_NO_NODE. >>>> >>>> The main motivation behind this is to address the need to be able to >>>> schedule device specific init work on specific NUMA nodes in order to >>>> improve performance of memory initialization. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck >>>> --- >>> >>> No one else from Intel has reviewed/verified this code at all? >>> >>> Please take advantages of the resources you have that most people do >>> not, get reviewes from your coworkers please before you send this out >>> again, as they can give you valuable help before the community has to >>> review the code... >> >> I tend to be suspicious of code that arrives on the mailing list >> day-one with a series of company-internal reviewed-by tags. Sometimes >> there is preliminary work that can be done internally, but I think we >> should prefer to do review in the open as much as possible where it >> does not waste community time. Alex and I did reach a general internal >> consensus to send this out and get community feedback, but I assumed >> to do the bulk of the review in parallel with everyone else. That said >> I think it's fine to ask for some other acks before you take a look, >> but let's do that in the open. > > Doing it in the open is great, see my response to Pavel for the history > of why I am normally suspicious of this, and why I wrote the above. > > Also this patchset has had a long history of me asking for things, and > not seeing the changes happen (hint, where are the benchmark numbers I > asked for a long time ago?) Touching the driver core like this is > tricky, and without others helping in review and test, it makes me > suspicious that it is not happening. > > This would be a great time for some other people to do that review :) > > thanks, > > greg k-h Is there any specific benchmark test you were wanting me to run? As far as crude numbers this patch set started out specifically focused on patch 9/9, but I thought it best to apply it more generically as I found we could still run into the issue if we enabled async_probe. What I have seen on several systems is a pretty significant improvement in initialization time for persistent memory. In the case of 3TB of memory being initialized on a single node the improvement in the worst case was from about 36s down to 26s for total initialization time. I plan to resubmit this set after plumber's since there were a few typos and bits of comment left over in a patch description that needed to be sorted out. I will try to make certain to have any benchmark data I have included with the set the next time I put it out. Thanks. - Alex _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm