On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 01:36 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, September 05, 2013 05:08:03 PM Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 00:40 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Thursday, September 05, 2013 04:17:25 PM Alex Williamson wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2013-09-05 at 23:39 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, September 05, 2013 09:44:26 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, September 05, 2013 08:21:41 AM Alex Williamson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ 18.288122] pci 0000:00:00.0: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288127] pcieport 0000:00:01.0: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288142] pci 0000:01:00.0: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288157] pci 0000:01:00.1: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288162] pcieport 0000:00:03.0: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288176] pci 0000:02:00.0: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288190] pci 0000:02:00.1: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288195] pcieport 0000:00:07.0: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288209] pci 0000:03:00.0: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288224] pci 0000:03:00.1: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288228] pci 0000:00:14.0: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288233] pci 0000:00:14.1: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288237] pci 0000:00:14.2: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288242] pci 0000:00:16.0: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288247] pci 0000:00:16.1: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288251] pci 0000:00:16.2: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288256] pci 0000:00:16.3: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288260] pci 0000:00:16.4: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288265] pci 0000:00:16.5: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288269] pci 0000:00:16.6: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288274] pci 0000:00:16.7: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288278] pci 0000:00:1a.0: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288279] pci 0000:00:1a.0: using default PCI settings > > > > > > > > [ 18.288292] pci 0000:00:1a.1: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288293] pci 0000:00:1a.1: using default PCI settings > > > > > > > > [ 18.288307] ehci-pci 0000:00:1a.7: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288308] ehci-pci 0000:00:1a.7: using default PCI settings > > > > > > > > [ 18.288322] pci 0000:00:1b.0: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288327] pcieport 0000:00:1c.0: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288332] pcieport 0000:00:1c.4: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288344] pci 0000:05:00.0: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288349] pci 0000:00:1d.0: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288350] pci 0000:00:1d.0: using default PCI settings > > > > > > > > [ 18.288360] pci 0000:00:1d.1: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288361] pci 0000:00:1d.1: using default PCI settings > > > > > > > > [ 18.288374] pci 0000:00:1d.2: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288374] pci 0000:00:1d.2: using default PCI settings > > > > > > > > [ 18.288387] pci 0000:00:1d.3: no hotplug settings from platform > > > > > > > > [ 18.288387] pci 0000:00:1d.3: using default PCI settings > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The boot is noticeably slower. What's going to happen on systems that > > > > > > > > actually have a significant I/O topology vs my little workstation? > > > > > > > > > > > > That depends on how many bus check/device check events they generate on boot. > > > > > > > > > > > > My test machines don't generate them during boot at all (even the one with > > > > > > a Thunderbolt connector), so I don't see the messages in question during boot > > > > > > on any of them. Mika doesn't see them either I suppose, or he would have told > > > > > > me about that before. > > > > > > > > > > > > And let's just make it clear that it is not usual or even OK to generate bus > > > > > > checks or device checks during boot like this. And since the changes in > > > > > > question have been in linux-next since right after the 3.11 merge window, I > > > > > > think that someone would have complained already had that been a common issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, we need to deal with that somehow nevertheless. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just to give you an idea: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_HOTPLUG_PCI_ACPI=y > > > > > > > > > > > > > > $ dmesg | wc > > > > > > > 5697 49935 384368 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > $ dmesg | tail --lines=1 > > > > > > > [ 53.137123] Ebtables v2.0 registered > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- vs -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > # CONFIG_HOTPLUG_PCI_ACPI is not set > > > > > > > > > > > > > > $ dmesg | wc > > > > > > > 1053 9176 71652 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > $dmesg | tail --lines=1 > > > > > > > [ 28.917220] Ebtables v2.0 registered > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So it spews out 5x more output with acpiphp enabled and takes and extra > > > > > > > 24s to boot (nearly 2x). Not good. > > > > > > > > > > > > The "no hotplug settings from platform" message is from pci_configure_slot(). > > > > > > I think the messages you're seeing are from the call to it in > > > > > > acpiphp_set_hpp_values() which is called by enable_slot(). > > > > > > > > > > > > There, I think, we can simply check the return value of pci_scan_slot() and > > > > > > if that is 0 (no new devices), we can just skip everything under the call to > > > > > > __pci_bus_assign_resources(). > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we can't skip the scanning of bridges, if any, because there may be > > > > > > new devices below them and I guess that's what takes so much time on your > > > > > > machine. > > > > > > > > > > OK, one piece is missing. We may need to evaluate _OSC after handling each > > > > > event to let the platform know the status. > > > > > > > > > > Can you please check if the appended patch makes any difference (with the > > > > > previous fix applied, of course)? > > > > > > > > > > If fact, it is two patches combined. One of them optimizes enable_slot() > > > > > slightly and the other adds the missing _OSC evaluation. > > > > > > > > Better, still double the output: > > > > > > > > $ dmesg | wc > > > > 2169 19047 152710 > > > > > > I see. > > > > > > What about the timing? > > > > ~40s below vs ~29s for acpiphp config'd out above. > > Well, that's better than before. > > I'll prepare "official" patches with the last changes then too. > > > > > $ dmesg | tail --lines=1 > > > > [ 39.980918] Ebtables v2.0 registered > > > > > > > > Here's another interesting stat: > > > > > > > > $ dmesg | colrm 1 15 | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | head --lines=25 > > > > 73 pci 0000:00:1f.0: BAR 13: [io 0x1000-0x107f] has bogus alignment > > > > 73 pci 0000:00:1e.0: PCI bridge to [bus 06] > > > > 64 pci 0000:00:1e.0: bridge window [mem 0x81100000-0x812fffff 64bit pref] > > > > 64 pci 0000:00:1e.0: bridge window [mem 0x80f00000-0x810fffff] > > > > 64 pci 0000:00:1e.0: bridge window [io 0x7000-0x7fff] > > > > 38 pci 0000:00:1c.4: PCI bridge to [bus 05] > > > > 38 pci 0000:00:1c.4: bridge window [mem 0xf4f00000-0xf4ffffff] > > > > 38 pci 0000:00:1c.0: PCI bridge to [bus 04] > > > > 38 pci 0000:00:07.0: PCI bridge to [bus 03] > > > > 38 pci 0000:00:07.0: bridge window [mem 0xf2000000-0xf40fffff] > > > > 38 pci 0000:00:07.0: bridge window [mem 0xe0000000-0xf1ffffff 64bit pref] > > > > 38 pci 0000:00:07.0: bridge window [io 0x4000-0x4fff] > > > > 38 pci 0000:00:03.0: PCI bridge to [bus 02] > > > > 38 pci 0000:00:03.0: bridge window [mem 0xf4e00000-0xf4efffff] > > > > 38 pci 0000:00:03.0: bridge window [mem 0xd0000000-0xdfffffff 64bit pref] > > > > 38 pci 0000:00:03.0: bridge window [io 0x3000-0x3fff] > > > > 38 pci 0000:00:01.0: PCI bridge to [bus 01] > > > > 38 pci 0000:00:01.0: bridge window [mem 0xf4100000-0xf4bfffff] > > > > 38 pci 0000:00:01.0: bridge window [io 0x2000-0x2fff] > > > > 37 pci 0000:00:1c.4: bridge window [mem 0x80c00000-0x80dfffff 64bit pref] > > > > 37 pci 0000:00:1c.4: bridge window [io 0x6000-0x6fff] > > > > 37 pci 0000:00:1c.0: bridge window [mem 0x80a00000-0x80bfffff 64bit pref] > > > > 37 pci 0000:00:1c.0: bridge window [mem 0x80800000-0x809fffff] > > > > 37 pci 0000:00:1c.0: bridge window [io 0x5000-0x5fff] > > > > 36 pci 0000:00:01.0: bridge window [mem 0x80000000-0x807fffff 64bit pref] > > > > > > > > This is nearly the entire difference, just 25 lines repeated over and > > > > over. > > Can you check how many times the lines above are repeated? The line count is pre-pended to each line. 73 times for the first two line, etc. > > > > > > Well, this is the bridge sizing I talked about previously. We still get > > > apparently spurious bus check/device check events and they trigger bridge > > > scans. > > > > > > I'm not sure what to do about that and I wonder whether or not this is > > > reproducible on any other machines you can test. > > > > I can try it on a couple other systems, but probably not until tomorrow. > > Tomorrow (or even later) works just fine for me. :-) > > > > Can you please change dbg() to pr_info() under ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK and > > > ACPI_NOTIFY_DEVICE_CHECK in hotplug_event() (acpiphp_glue.c), grep the boot > > > dmesg log for "check notify" and send the result? I'm wondering what's > > > going on there. > > > > $ dmesg | grep "check notify" > > [ 1.633228] hotplug_event: Device check notify on \_SB_.PCI0.PEX2 > > [ 2.472004] hotplug_event: Device check notify on \_SB_.PCI0.PEX3 > > [ 2.477288] hotplug_event: Device check notify on \_SB_.PCI0.PEX4 > > [ 2.482571] hotplug_event: Device check notify on \_SB_.PCI0.PEX5 > > [ 2.482579] hotplug_event: Device check notify on \_SB_.PCI0.PEX6 > > [ 8.204953] hotplug_event: Device check notify on \_SB_.PCI0.PEX2 > > [ 8.209632] hotplug_event: Device check notify on \_SB_.PCI0.PEX3 > > [ 8.214272] hotplug_event: Device check notify on \_SB_.PCI0.PEX4 > > [ 8.218894] hotplug_event: Device check notify on \_SB_.PCI0.PEX5 > > [ 8.218901] hotplug_event: Device check notify on \_SB_.PCI0.PEX6 > > So I guess the PEXn things are PCIe ports and we get two notifications > for each of them, so everything below them gets rescanned. > > I've just talked to Bjorn about that and we don't seem to have a good idea > how to handle this. The notifies shouldn't be there, but we kind of have > to handle them. > > I guess we could suppress the output from repeated bridge scans. Alternatively, > we could just blacklist this particular system somehow if the problem is > specific to it. Can't we determine that nothing has changed and avoid re-printing? I have a hard time believing this system is all that unique. Thanks, Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
