lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3][RFC/RFT] PM / sleep: Do not delay the synchronization of MTRR during resume
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!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-13 17:01    [W:0.064 / U:28.988 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site