All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@huawei.com>
To: <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, <will@kernel.org>,
	<kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>, <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	<tglx@linutronix.de>, <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
	<ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Cc: <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"hushiyuan@huawei.com" <hushiyuan@huawei.com>,
	<wuyun.wu@huawei.com>,
	"linfeilong@huawei.com" <linfeilong@huawei.com>
Subject: [PATCH V3] arm64: psci: Reduce waiting time for cpu_psci_cpu_kill()
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 19:24:14 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <433980c7-f246-f741-f00c-fce103a60af7@huawei.com> (raw)

In a case like suspend-to-disk, a large number of CPU cores need to be
shut down. At present, the CPU hotplug operation is serialised, and the
CPU cores can only be shut down one by one. In this process, if PSCI
affinity_info() does not return LEVEL_OFF quickly, cpu_psci_cpu_kill()
needs to wait for 10ms. If hundreds of CPU cores need to be shut down,
it will take a long time.

Normally, it is no need to wait 10ms in cpu_psci_cpu_kill(). So change
the wait interval from 10 ms to max 1 ms and use usleep_range() instead
of msleep() for more accurate schedule.

In addition, reduce the time interval will increase the messages output,
so remove the "Retry ..." message, instead, put the number of waiting
times to the sucessful message.

Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@huawei.com>
---
v2 -> v3:
 - update the comment
 - remove the busy-wait logic, modify the loop logic and output message

v1 -> v2:
 - use usleep_range() instead of udelay() after waiting for a while

 arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c | 7 +++----
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c
index c9f72b2665f1..00b8c0825a08 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c
@@ -91,15 +91,14 @@ static int cpu_psci_cpu_kill(unsigned int cpu)
 	 * while it is dying. So, try again a few times.
 	 */

-	for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
+	for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
 		err = psci_ops.affinity_info(cpu_logical_map(cpu), 0);
 		if (err == PSCI_0_2_AFFINITY_LEVEL_OFF) {
-			pr_info("CPU%d killed.\n", cpu);
+			pr_info("CPU%d killed by waiting %d loops.\n", cpu, i);
 			return 0;
 		}

-		msleep(10);
-		pr_info("Retrying again to check for CPU kill\n");
+		usleep_range(100, 1000);
 	}

 	pr_warn("CPU%d may not have shut down cleanly (AFFINITY_INFO reports %d)\n",
-- 
2.7.4.3


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@huawei.com>
To: <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, <will@kernel.org>,
	<kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>, <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	<tglx@linutronix.de>, <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
	<ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Cc: "hushiyuan@huawei.com" <hushiyuan@huawei.com>,
	"linfeilong@huawei.com" <linfeilong@huawei.com>,
	wuyun.wu@huawei.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH V3] arm64: psci: Reduce waiting time for cpu_psci_cpu_kill()
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 19:24:14 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <433980c7-f246-f741-f00c-fce103a60af7@huawei.com> (raw)

In a case like suspend-to-disk, a large number of CPU cores need to be
shut down. At present, the CPU hotplug operation is serialised, and the
CPU cores can only be shut down one by one. In this process, if PSCI
affinity_info() does not return LEVEL_OFF quickly, cpu_psci_cpu_kill()
needs to wait for 10ms. If hundreds of CPU cores need to be shut down,
it will take a long time.

Normally, it is no need to wait 10ms in cpu_psci_cpu_kill(). So change
the wait interval from 10 ms to max 1 ms and use usleep_range() instead
of msleep() for more accurate schedule.

In addition, reduce the time interval will increase the messages output,
so remove the "Retry ..." message, instead, put the number of waiting
times to the sucessful message.

Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@huawei.com>
---
v2 -> v3:
 - update the comment
 - remove the busy-wait logic, modify the loop logic and output message

v1 -> v2:
 - use usleep_range() instead of udelay() after waiting for a while

 arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c | 7 +++----
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c
index c9f72b2665f1..00b8c0825a08 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c
@@ -91,15 +91,14 @@ static int cpu_psci_cpu_kill(unsigned int cpu)
 	 * while it is dying. So, try again a few times.
 	 */

-	for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
+	for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
 		err = psci_ops.affinity_info(cpu_logical_map(cpu), 0);
 		if (err == PSCI_0_2_AFFINITY_LEVEL_OFF) {
-			pr_info("CPU%d killed.\n", cpu);
+			pr_info("CPU%d killed by waiting %d loops.\n", cpu, i);
 			return 0;
 		}

-		msleep(10);
-		pr_info("Retrying again to check for CPU kill\n");
+		usleep_range(100, 1000);
 	}

 	pr_warn("CPU%d may not have shut down cleanly (AFFINITY_INFO reports %d)\n",
-- 
2.7.4.3


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

             reply	other threads:[~2019-10-18 11:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-18 11:24 Yunfeng Ye [this message]
2019-10-18 11:24 ` [PATCH V3] arm64: psci: Reduce waiting time for cpu_psci_cpu_kill() Yunfeng Ye
2019-10-18 11:41 ` Mark Rutland
2019-10-18 11:41   ` Mark Rutland
2019-10-18 12:22   ` Yunfeng Ye
2019-10-18 12:22     ` Yunfeng Ye
2019-10-18 11:45 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-10-18 11:45   ` Sudeep Holla
2019-10-18 12:03   ` Yunfeng Ye
2019-10-18 12:03     ` Yunfeng Ye

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=433980c7-f246-f741-f00c-fce103a60af7@huawei.com \
    --to=yeyunfeng@huawei.com \
    --cc=David.Laight@ACULAB.COM \
    --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=hushiyuan@huawei.com \
    --cc=kstewart@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linfeilong@huawei.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
    --cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=wuyun.wu@huawei.com \
    /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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
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.