Re: [RFC PATCH] PM/CPU: Parallel enabling nonboot cpus with resume devices

From: Lan Tianyu
Date: Mon Aug 11 2014 - 04:53:40 EST


On 2014å08æ08æ 18:55, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> Hi Lan,
>
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 05:11:34PM +0800, Lan Tianyu wrote:
>> In the current world, all nonboot cpus are enabled serially during system
>> resume. System resume sequence is that boot cpu enables nonboot cpu one by
>> one and then resume devices. Before resuming devices, there are few tasks
>> assigned to nonboot cpus after they are brought up. This waste cpu usage.
>>
>> To accelerate S3, this patches adds a new kernel configure
>> PM_PARALLEL_CPU_UP_FOR_SUSPEND to allow boot cpu to go forward to resume
>> devices after bringing up one nonboot cpu. The nonboot cpu will be in charge
>> of bringing up other cpus. This makes enabling cpu2~x parallel with resuming
>> devices. From the test result on 4 logical core laptop, the time of resume
>> device almost wasn't affected by enabling nonboot cpus lately while the start
>> point is almost 30ms earlier than before.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> kernel/cpu.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>> kernel/power/Kconfig | 13 +++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
>> index a343bde..d4c1353 100644
>> --- a/kernel/cpu.c
>> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
>> @@ -551,9 +551,27 @@ void __weak arch_enable_nonboot_cpus_end(void)
>> {
>> }
>>
>> +static int _cpu_up_with_trace(int cpu)
>> +{
>> + int error;
>> +
>> + trace_suspend_resume(TPS("CPU_ON"), cpu, true);
>> + error = _cpu_up(cpu, 1);
>> + trace_suspend_resume(TPS("CPU_ON"), cpu, false);
>> + if (error) {
>> + pr_warn("Error taking CPU%d up: %d\n", cpu, error);
>> + return error;
>> + }
>> +
>> + pr_info("CPU%d is up\n", cpu);
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>
> [..snip..]
>>
>> +
>> +void __ref enable_nonboot_cpus(void)
>> +{
>> + struct task_struct *tsk;
>> + int cpu;
>> +
>> + /* Allow everyone to use the CPU hotplug again */
>> + cpu_maps_update_begin();
>> + cpu_hotplug_disabled = 0;
>> + if (cpumask_empty(frozen_cpus))
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + arch_enable_nonboot_cpus_begin();
>> +
>> + cpu = cpumask_first(frozen_cpus);
>> + cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, frozen_cpus);
>> +
>> + _cpu_up_with_trace(cpu);
>
> We should be handling the error returned by _cpu_up_with_trace()
> in case 'cpu' fails to come online. Unless it is something that I am
> not aware of it doesn't make much sense to create a kthread on a cpu
> that we know has failed to come online.
>

Hi Gautham:

Great thanks for your review. Yes, you are right. I will take it into
account when send out V2.

>
>> +
>> + if (cpumask_empty(frozen_cpus)) {
>> + arch_enable_nonboot_cpus_end();
>> + } else {
>> + tsk = kthread_create_on_cpu(async_enable_nonboot_cpus,
>> + NULL, cpu, "async-enable-nonboot-cpus");
>> + if (IS_ERR(tsk)) {
>> + pr_err("Failed to create async enable nonboot cpus thread.\n");
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> + kthread_unpark(tsk);
>> + }
>> +out:
>> + cpu_maps_update_done();
>> +}
>> +#endif
>> +
>
> --
> Thanks and Regards
> gautham.
>


--
Best regards
Tianyu Lan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/