From: Yu Chen <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Rui Zhang <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3][RFC/RFT] PM / sleep: Do not delay the synchronization of MTRR during resume
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:02:42 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171213160242.GB29572@yu-chen.sh.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1613777.Al2QaFApID@aspire.rjw.lan>
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 01:31:50AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 10:58:50 AM CET Yu Chen wrote:
> > From: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
> >
> > Sometimes it is too late for the APs to synchronize the MTRR
> > after all the APs have been brought up. In some cases the BIOS
> > might scribble the MTRR across suspend/resume, as a result we
> > might get insane MTRR after resumed back, thus every instruction
> > run on this AP would be extremely slow if it happended to be 'uncached'
> > in the MTRR, although after all the APs have been brought up, the
> > delayed invoking of set_mtrr_state() will adjust the MTRR on APs
> > thus brings everything back to normal. In practice it is necessary
> > to synchronize the MTRR as early as possible to get it fixed during
> > each AP's online. And this is what this patch does.
> >
> > Moreover, since we have put the synchronization earlier, there is
> > a side effect that, during each AP's online, the other cpus already
> > online will be forced stopped to run mtrr_rendezvous_handler() and
> > reprogram the MTRR again and again. This symptom can be lessened
> > by checking if this cpu has already finished the synchronization
> > during the enable_nonboot_cpus() stage, if it is, we can safely
> > bypass the reprogramming action. (We can not bypass the
> > mtrr_rendezvous_handler(), because the other online cpus must be
> > stopped running the VMX transaction while one cpu is updating
> > its MTRR, which is described here:
> > Commit d0af9eed5aa9 ("x86, pat/mtrr: Rendezvous all the cpus for
> > MTRR/PAT init")
> >
> > This patch does not impact the normal boot up and cpu hotplug.
> >
> > On a platform with insane MTRR after resumed,
> > 1 .before this patch:
> > [ 619.810899] Enabling non-boot CPUs ...
> > [ 619.825537] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 1 APIC 0x2
> > [ 621.723809] CPU1 is up
> > [ 621.840228] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 3 APIC 0x3
> > [ 626.690900] CPU3 is up
> >
> > So it took cpu1 621.723809 - 619.825537 = 1898.272 ms, and
> > cpu3 626.690900 - 621.840228 = 4850.672 ms.
> >
> > 2. after this patch:
> > [ 106.931790] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 1 APIC 0x2
> > [ 106.948360] CPU1 is up
> > [ 106.986534] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 3 APIC 0x3
> > [ 106.990702] CPU3 is up
> >
> > It took cpu1 106.948360 - 106.931790 = 16.57 ms, and
> > cpu3 106.990702 - 106.986534 = 4.16 ms.
> >
> > For comparison, I also verify the suspend on a 88 cpus Xeon Broadwell
> > platform, and the result also shows that with this patch applied,
> > the overall APs online time has decreased a little bit, I think this
> > is because after we synchronize the MTRR earlier, the MTRRs also get
> > updated to the correct value earlier.
> >
> > I've tested 5 times each, before/after the patch applied:
> >
> > 1. before this patch:
> > [ 64.549430] Enabling non-boot CPUs ...
> > [ 66.253304] End enabling non-boot CPUs
> >
> > overall cpu online: 1.703874 second
> >
> > [ 62.159063] Enabling non-boot CPUs ...
> > [ 64.483443] End enabling non-boot CPUs
> >
> > overall cpu online: 2.32438 second
> >
> > [ 58.351449] Enabling non-boot CPUs ...
> > [ 60.796951] End enabling non-boot CPUs
> >
> > overall cpu online: 2.445502 second
> >
> > [ 64.491317] Enabling non-boot CPUs ...
> > [ 66.996208] End enabling non-boot CPUs
> >
> > overall cpu online: 2.504891 second
> >
> > [ 60.593235] Enabling non-boot CPUs ...
> > [ 63.397886] End enabling non-boot CPUs
> >
> > overall cpu online: 2.804651 second
> >
> > average: 2.3566596 second
> >
> > 2. after this patch:
> >
> > [ 66.077368] Enabling non-boot CPUs ...
> > [ 68.343374] End enabling non-boot CPUs
> >
> > overall cpu online: 2.266006 second
> >
> > [ 64.594605] Enabling non-boot CPUs ...
> > [ 66.092688] End enabling non-boot CPUs
> >
> > overall cpu online: 1.498083 second
> >
> > [ 64.778546] Enabling non-boot CPUs ...
> > [ 66.277577] End enabling non-boot CPUs
> >
> > overall cpu online: 1.499031 second
> >
> > [ 63.773091] Enabling non-boot CPUs ...
> > [ 65.601637] End enabling non-boot CPUs
> >
> > overall cpu online: 1.828546 second
> >
> > [ 64.638855] Enabling non-boot CPUs ...
> > [ 66.327098] End enabling non-boot CPUs
> >
> > overall cpu online: 1.688243 second
> >
> > average: 1.7559818 second
> >
> > In one word, with the patch applied, the cpu online time during resume
> > has decreased by about 6 seconds on a bogus MTRR platform, and decreased
> > by about 600ms on a 88 cpus Xeon platform after resumed.
> >
> > Cc: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > Cc: Rui Zhang <rui.zhang@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
>
> It will be better to combine this with patch [2/3] IMO, because that makes it
> clear why the changes in that patch are needed.
>
> Also you can define the new flag in mtrr/main.c, set it in
> arch_enable_nonboot_cpus_begin() and clear it in
> arch_enable_nonboot_cpus_end(). It is better to put it into the arch-specific
> code as the flag itself is arch-specific.
>
> Then, of course, you don't need patch [1/3] and all can be done in one patch.
>
Ok, will rewrite the patch, thanks!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-13 16:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-31 9:58 [PATCH 0/3][RFC/RFT] Do not delay the MTRR synchronization for Yu Chen
2017-10-31 9:58 ` [PATCH 1/3][RFC/RFT] PM / sleep: Introduce a flag to identify the enable_nonboot_cpus stage Yu Chen
2017-10-31 9:58 ` [PATCH 2/3][RFC/RFT] x86/mtrr: Add cpu id into the MTRR setting data structure Yu Chen
2017-10-31 9:58 ` [PATCH 3/3][RFC/RFT] PM / sleep: Do not delay the synchronization of MTRR during resume Yu Chen
2017-12-13 0:31 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-12-13 16:02 ` Yu Chen [this message]
2018-02-06 14:04 ` Lukas Wunner
2018-02-06 14:16 ` Yu Chen
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=20171213160242.GB29572@yu-chen.sh.intel.com \
--to=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukas@wunner.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=rui.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®