Re: [PATCH] driver core: Disable late probes by default

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 01:09:55PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 05:53:13PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> >> On 21 October 2015 at 17:14, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> >> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 04:35:58PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> >> >> On 21 October 2015 at 05:39, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> >> >> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 06:17:39PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> >> >> >> On 20 October 2015 at 16:05, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> >> >> >> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 09:40:48AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On 19 October 2015 at 17:19, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> >> >> >> >> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 05:13:22PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> To smooth the transition to late probes, make disabled the default for
> >> >> >> >> >> DELAY_DEVICE_PROBES and let individual SoCs enable the option as they
> >> >> >> >> >> get fixed.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >> >> >> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/g/20151016181129.GA1764@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> ---
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Rob,
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> I'm sending this in case you think it would be best to leave the
> >> >> >> >> >> on-demand probe series in -next for now but have late probes disabled to
> >> >> >> >> >> avoid hassle to some people.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > I would like Rob to just drop this series please, I don't agree with it
> >> >> >> >> > at all at the moment.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Hi Greg,
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> is it the case that you are satisfied with deferred probes as a way of
> >> >> >> >> ordering device probing and that I should look at how to solve my
> >> >> >> >> problem by improving it?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Yes, especially given that you have said this does not speed up your
> >> >> >> > boot times, which I thought was your main goal here :(
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Sorry if I'm repeating myself too often, but I have two goals: change
> >> >> >> the probing order to not send deferred probes to the back of the queue
> >> >> >> (getting the display up as fast as possible), and making easier to
> >> >> >> understand the boot process on embedded platforms.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The concrete issue that would be fixed by achieving the first goal was
> >> >> >> explained in this email from last year:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2014-August/066527.html
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Because of that, ChromeOS had to use their own bindings for the panel
> >> >> >> node so that the panel probe wouldn't be deferred, introducing a
> >> >> >> sizable delta that is a barrier to rebasing on newer mainline releases
> >> >> >> and for vendors to upstream their HW adaptation for chrome devices.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 1.5 second delay is crazy (again, my laptop boots to X in less time than
> >> >> > that),
> >> >>
> >> >> 1.5 seconds isn't crazy at all for the kernel to initialize all the
> >> >> devices in an embedded board. That's the current state of affairs
> >> >> today.
> >> >
> >> > Then someone needs to fix that, that really is crazy.  What takes so
> >> > long here?  Why aren't you using async probing to do things in parallel
> >> > when you need to sleep in device probe (I'm hoping you are sleeping in
> >> > device probe, otherwise that's really broken)?
> >>
> >> I'm a bit surprised now. During all the time that I have been pushing
> >> this forward I have been regularly testing on more than a dozen boards
> >> with different socs and 1.5 seconds to probe all the devices isn't
> >> that much. This is basically due to having to wait for the hardware a
> >> bit here and there, and to the sheer number of devices involved.
> >>
> >> Of course people have been looking at speeding up boot on ARM devices
> >> for years now and this is what we have come with up to now.
> >>
> >> > Have you used the tools we have to find where the time is being spent?
> >>
> >> Have to recognize that my starting point has been that probe order was
> >> the cause of the problem and haven't profiled the whole boot process,
> >> but I don't see how probe ordering would become irrelevant unless we
> >> got total probing time down to 200ms. And that would give us a
> >> fabulously fast boot, which I don't think is as realistic as you seem
> >> to believe.
> >
> > So you aren't using the tools that we have today that were created years
> > ago, to help to reduce boot time problems like this and instead work on
> > changing the driver core to try to guess at what the real issue is here?
> >
> > Come on, until you really know where you are taking so long, how can you
> > know what you need to fix?  I strongly recommend doing that here first,
> > that's why those tools were written in the first place.
> 
> For something everyone is or should be doing for years, there is
> surprisingly zero information I can find. It is perf timechart you are
> talking about, right? Everything I find on it is all after userspace
> starts. I know perf has command line options, but I never could get it
> to do what I wanted (which was dumping events up until a boot hang).

scripts/bootgraph.pl combined with 'initcall_debug' on the kernel
command line.  Landed in Linus's tree back in 2008, perf is not needed.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/