Hi Hans,
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 10:32 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On 5/15/23 18:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Notice that all of the objects for which the acpi_scan_check_dep()
> > return value is greater than 0 are present in acpi_dep_list as consumers
> > (there may be multiple entries for one object, but that is not a
> > problem), so after carrying out the initial ACPI namespace walk in which
> > devices with dependencies are skipped, acpi_bus_scan() can simply walk
> > acpi_dep_list and enumerate all of the unique consumer objects from
> > there and their descendants instead of walking the entire target branch
> > of the ACPI namespace and looking for device objects that have not been
> > enumerated yet in it.
> >
> > Because walking acpi_dep_list is generally less overhead than walking
> > the entire ACPI namespace, use the observation above to reduce the
> > system initialization overhead related to ACPI, which is particularly
> > important on large systems.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/scan.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > include/acpi/acpi_bus.h | 2 +
> > 2 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-pm/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> > +++ linux-pm/include/acpi/acpi_bus.h
> > @@ -289,6 +289,8 @@ struct acpi_dep_data {
> > acpi_handle supplier;
> > acpi_handle consumer;
> > bool honor_dep;
> > + bool met;
> > + bool free_when_met;
> > };
> >
> > /* Performance Management */
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > @@ -2029,8 +2029,6 @@ static u32 acpi_scan_check_dep(acpi_hand
> > return count;
> > }
> >
> > -static bool acpi_bus_scan_second_pass;
> > -
> > static acpi_status acpi_bus_check_add(acpi_handle handle, bool check_dep,
> > struct acpi_device **adev_p)
> > {
> > @@ -2050,10 +2048,8 @@ static acpi_status acpi_bus_check_add(ac
> > return AE_OK;
> >
> > /* Bail out if there are dependencies. */
> > - if (acpi_scan_check_dep(handle, check_dep) > 0) {
> > - acpi_bus_scan_second_pass = true;
> > + if (acpi_scan_check_dep(handle, check_dep) > 0)
> > return AE_CTRL_DEPTH;
> > - }
> >
> > fallthrough;
> > case ACPI_TYPE_ANY: /* for ACPI_ROOT_OBJECT */
> > @@ -2301,6 +2297,12 @@ static bool acpi_scan_clear_dep_queue(st
> > return true;
> > }
> >
> > +static void acpi_scan_delete_dep_data(struct acpi_dep_data *dep)
> > +{
> > + list_del(&dep->node);
> > + kfree(dep);
> > +}
> > +
> > static int acpi_scan_clear_dep(struct acpi_dep_data *dep, void *data)
> > {
> > struct acpi_device *adev = acpi_get_acpi_dev(dep->consumer);
> > @@ -2311,8 +2313,10 @@ static int acpi_scan_clear_dep(struct ac
> > acpi_dev_put(adev);
> > }
> >
> > - list_del(&dep->node);
> > - kfree(dep);
> > + if (dep->free_when_met)
> > + acpi_scan_delete_dep_data(dep);
> > + else
> > + dep->met = true;
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> > @@ -2406,6 +2410,53 @@ struct acpi_device *acpi_dev_get_next_co
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_dev_get_next_consumer_dev);
> >
> > +static void acpi_scan_postponed_branch(acpi_handle handle)
> > +{
> > + struct acpi_device *adev = NULL;
> > +
> > + if (ACPI_FAILURE(acpi_bus_check_add(handle, false, &adev)))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + acpi_walk_namespace(ACPI_TYPE_ANY, handle, ACPI_UINT32_MAX,
> > + acpi_bus_check_add_2, NULL, NULL, (void **)&adev);
> > + acpi_bus_attach(adev, NULL);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void acpi_scan_postponed(void)
> > +{
> > + struct acpi_dep_data *dep, *tmp;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&acpi_dep_list_lock);
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry_safe(dep, tmp, &acpi_dep_list, node) {
> > + acpi_handle handle = dep->consumer;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Even though the lock is released here, tmp is guaranteed to
> > + * be valid, because none of the list entries following dep is
> > + * marked as "free when met" and so they cannot be deleted.
> > + */
> > + mutex_unlock(&acpi_dep_list_lock);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * In case there are multiple acpi_dep_list entries with the
> > + * same consumer, skip the current entry if the consumer device
> > + * object corresponding to it is present already.
> > + */
> > + if (!acpi_fetch_acpi_dev(handle))
> > + acpi_scan_postponed_branch(handle);
>
> acpi_fetch_acpi_dev(handle) does not need/take the acpi_dep_list_lock,
> so you can avoid a needless unlock/lock in case acpi_fetch_acpi_dev(handle)
> finds a device already, which will happen quite regular since devices
> with _DEP lists regularly have more then 1 dep so they will be present
> as consumer on the _DEP list more then once.
>
> So maybe:
>
> list_for_each_entry_safe(dep, tmp, &acpi_dep_list, node) {
> acpi_handle handle = dep->consumer;
> struct acpi_device *device = acpi_fetch_acpi_dev(handle);
>
> /*
> * In case there are multiple acpi_dep_list entries with the
> * same consumer, skip scanning the current entry if the consumer
> * device object corresponding to it is present already.
> */
> if (device)
> goto check_dep;
>
> /*
> * Even though the lock is released here, tmp is guaranteed to
> * be valid, because none of the list entries following dep is
> * marked as "free when met" and so they cannot be deleted.
> */
> mutex_unlock(&acpi_dep_list_lock);
> acpi_scan_postponed_branch(handle);
> mutex_lock(&acpi_dep_list_lock);
>
> check_dep:
> if (dep->met)
> acpi_scan_delete_dep_data(dep);
> else
> dep->free_when_met = true;
> }
>
> ?
Thanks for the suggestion, sounds good.
I'll send a v2 modified along these lines shortly.
