On 1/15/2011 11:33 PM, Dirk Behme wrote:
Do you talk about
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=22a9d645677feefd402befd02edd59b122289ef1
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=4ace92fc112c6069b4fcb95a31d3142d4a43ff2a
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=793180570ff2530d133343ceea85648de5f01b02
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=f29d3b23238e1955a8094e038c72546e99308e61
http://lwn.net/Articles/314808/
merged with 2.6.29?
With a recent .37 kernel the usage of async_schedule() seems to be
implemented for
yep
./drivers/acpi/battery.c
./drivers/s390/block/dasd.c
./drivers/base/power/main.c
./drivers/ata/libata-core.c
./drivers/scsi/sd.c
./drivers/md/raid5.c
With this, on an embedded system using none of this, the completely
single-threaded start up reported in [2] seems to be reasonable, then?
quite likely.
This would mean that to improve the issues reported in [2],
async_schedule() has to be implemented for the sub systems used,
there, too? I.e. the USB init?
USB init is asynchronous internal to USB; this was one of the outcomes
of a side discussion at the Kernel Summit a year and a half ago or so
where Alan Stern visualized the problem... and solved it internal to USB.
Now, there is one 100 msec delay that is inherent to USB (mandatory
delay required by the spec for voltage to stabilize) but that shouldn't
be in the synchronous path anymore
what kernel are you seeing issues on?
[1] talks about 2.6.28, [2] talks about 2.6.34.
yeah 2.6.28 is a lost cause ;-) 2.6.34 should be not too bad.
Now, the one thing that's critical for all of this is that we need to do
this data driven. Using async init is not always as easy as it sounds;
there are device ordering things that need to be dealt with, and failure
cases get much more complex as well.
So the first order of business ALWAYS is to get a bootgraph (from
scripts/bootgraph.pl)... to see which things are big on the one hand,
but also to see if there is gains to be had. There is absolutely no gain
possible (in terms of making something async) if it is pretty much the
last big thing in the boot that you are making asynchronous (since the
end of kernel boot has to wait for it all anyway); there is only gains
for async if the expensive operation, when made async, can run in
parallel with something else expensive that comes later in the kernel init.
The bootgraph will show this opportunity / pitfall very clearly......
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
