On 10/19/2015 5:34 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On 18 October 2015 at 21:53, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:37:57PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:29:31PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: >>>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:57:50PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: < snip > > hope you don't mind I summarize the points taken instead of replying > to the individual emails. I tried to address all the concerns that > have been raised again in the cover letter, but I guess I did a bad > job at explaining myself, so here's another (more in-depth) go at it. < snip > > 3) Regarding total boot time, I don't expect this series to make much > of a difference because though we would save a lot of matching and > querying for resources, that's little time compared with how long we > wait for hardware to react during probing. Async probing is more > likely to help with drivers that take a long time to probe. And then in your reply to Russell's reply to your email you say: > To be clear, I was saying that this series should NOT affect total > boot times much. I'm confused. If I understood correctly, improving boot time was the key justification for accepting this patch set. For example, from "[PATCH v7 0/20] On-demand device probing": I have a problem with the panel on my Tegra Chromebook taking longer than expected to be ready during boot (Stéphane Marchesin reported what is basically the same issue in [0]), and have looked into ordered probing as a better way of solving this than moving nodes around in the DT or playing with initcall levels and linking order. ... With this series I get the kernel to output to the panel in 0.5s, instead of 2.8s. Alexander Holler reported improved boot times for his patch set in August, which is another approach to ordering probes (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.devicetree/133010). His results for 5 boards was four booted faster, one slightly slower: Some numbers (5 boots on each board, without and with ordering drivers), all times are seconds. Kirkwood (dockstar, armv5): Boot to "Freeing unused kernel memory" (includes mounting the rootfs), unordered: 4.456016 3.937801 4.114788 4.114526 3.949480 (average 4.1145222) ordered: 3.173054 3.164045 3.141418 3.480679 3.459298 (3.2836988) Time needed to sort (of_init_build_order()): 0.003024 Time needed to match drivers to the order (without calling them): 0.002884 Beagleboard (rev C4, armv7): unordered: 6.706024 6.821746 6.696014 6.673675 6.769866 (6.733465) ordered: 5.544860 5.514160 5.505859 5.527374 5.496795 (5.5178096) sorting: 0.021209 matching: 0.006165 Beaglebone Black (rev A5, armv7): unordered: 3.826531 3.825662 3.826648 3.825434 3.825263 (3.8259076) ordered: 2.838554 2.838322 2.839459 2.838467 2.838421 (2.8386446) sorting: 0.004769 matching: 0.004860 imx6q (armv7): unordered: 3.451998 3.418864 3.446952 3.429974 3.440996 (3.4377568) ordered: 3.538312 3.549019 3.538105 3.515916 3.555715 (3.5394134) sorting: 0.004622 matching: 0.003868 While not as dramatic as your results, they are somewhat supportive. What has changed your assessment that the on-demand device probing patches will give a big boot performance increase? Do you have new data or analysis? -Frank -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
