lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [External] Re: [PATCH v9 0/8] Parallel CPU bringup for x86_64
From


On 22/02/2023 10:11, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-02-15 at 14:54 +0000, Usama Arif wrote:
>> The main change over v8 is dropping the patch to avoid repeated saves of MTRR
>> at boot time. It didn't make a difference to smpboot time and is independent
>> of parallel CPU bringup, so if needed can be explored in a separate patchset.
>>
>> The patches have also been rebased to v6.2-rc8 and retested and the
>> improvement in boot time is the same as v8.
>
> Thanks for picking this up, Usama.
>
> So the next thing that might be worth looking at is allowing the APs
> all to be running their hotplug thread simultaneously, bringing
> themselves from CPUHP_BRINGUP_CPU to CPUHP_AP_ONLINE. This series eats
> the initial INIT/SIPI/SIPI latency, but if there's any significant time
> in the AP hotplug thread, that could be worth parallelising.
>
> There may be further wins in the INIT/SIPI/SIPI too. Currently we
> process each CPU at a time, sending INIT, SIPI, waiting 10µs and
> sending another SIPI.
>
> What if we sent the first INIT+SIPI to all CPUs, then did another pass
> sending another SIPI only to those which hadn't already started running
> and set their bit in cpu_initialized_mask ?
>
> Might not be worth it, and there's an added complexity that they all
> have to wait for each other (on the real mode trampoline lock) before
> they can take their turn and get as far as setting their bit in
> cpu_initialized_mask. So we'd probably end up sending the second SIPI
> to most of them *anyway*.

Thanks! I think I sent out v10 a bit too early, but hopefully it looks
like everyone agrees on the suspend code in it at the moment?

As a next step, I was thinking of reposting and starting a discussion on
the reuse timer calibration patch separately. Its not part of parallel
smp, but in my testing, it takes away (70ms) ~70% of the remaining
parallel smpboot time. With the machine and kernel I am testing, the
kexec reboot time after parallel smp is just under a second, so this
represents ~7% of the boot time, which is a notable percentage reduction
in server downtime. Or maybe someone could reply to this thread saying
its not a good idea to post it as I remember there were quite a few
reservations about it? :)

Thanks,
Usama

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 00:32    [W:0.218 / U:0.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site