qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug] Take more 150s to boot qemu on ARM64


From: chenxiang (M)
Subject: Re: [Bug] Take more 150s to boot qemu on ARM64
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 09:53:30 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0



在 2022/6/13 21:22, Paul E. McKenney 写道:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 08:26:34PM +0800, chenxiang (M) wrote:
Hi all,

I encounter a issue with kernel 5.19-rc1 on a ARM64 board:  it takes about
150s between beginning to run qemu command and beginng to boot Linux kernel
("EFI stub: Booting Linux Kernel...").

But in kernel 5.18-rc4, it only takes about 5s. I git bisect the kernel code
and it finds c2445d387850 ("srcu: Add contention check to call_srcu()
srcu_data ->lock acquisition").

The qemu (qemu version is 6.2.92) command i run is :

./qemu-system-aarch64 -m 4G,slots=4,maxmem=8g \
--trace "kvm*" \
-cpu host \
-machine virt,accel=kvm,gic-version=3  \
-machine smp.cpus=2,smp.sockets=2 \
-no-reboot \
-nographic \
-monitor unix:/home/cx/qmp-test,server,nowait \
-bios /home/cx/boot/QEMU_EFI.fd \
-kernel /home/cx/boot/Image  \
-device 
pcie-root-port,port=0x8,chassis=1,id=net1,bus=pcie.0,multifunction=on,addr=0x1
\
-device vfio-pci,host=7d:01.3,id=net0 \
-device virtio-blk-pci,drive=drive0,id=virtblk0,num-queues=4  \
-drive file=/home/cx/boot/boot_ubuntu.img,if=none,id=drive0 \
-append "rdinit=init console=ttyAMA0 root=/dev/vda rootfstype=ext4 rw " \
-net none \
-D /home/cx/qemu_log.txt

I am not familiar with rcu code, and don't know how it causes the issue. Do
you have any idea about this issue?
Please see the discussion here:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20615615-0013-5adc-584f-2b1d5c03ebfc@linaro.org/

Though that report requires ACPI to be forced on to get the
delay, which results in more than 9,000 back-to-back calls to
synchronize_srcu_expedited().  I cannot reproduce this on my setup, even
with an artificial tight loop invoking synchronize_srcu_expedited(),
but then again I don't have ARM hardware.

My current guess is that the following patch, but with larger values for
SRCU_MAX_NODELAY_PHASE.  Here "larger" might well be up in the hundreds,
or perhaps even larger.

If you get a chance to experiment with this, could you please reply
to the discussion at the above URL?  (Or let me know, and I can CC
you on the next message in that thread.)

Ok, thanks, i will reply it on above URL.



                                                Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
index 50ba70f019dea..0db7873f4e95b 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
@@ -513,7 +513,7 @@ static bool srcu_readers_active(struct srcu_struct *ssp)
#define SRCU_INTERVAL 1 // Base delay if no expedited GPs pending.
  #define SRCU_MAX_INTERVAL     10      // Maximum incremental delay from slow 
readers.
-#define SRCU_MAX_NODELAY_PHASE 1       // Maximum per-GP-phase consecutive 
no-delay instances.
+#define SRCU_MAX_NODELAY_PHASE 3       // Maximum per-GP-phase consecutive 
no-delay instances.
  #define SRCU_MAX_NODELAY      100     // Maximum consecutive no-delay 
instances.
/*
@@ -522,16 +522,22 @@ static bool srcu_readers_active(struct srcu_struct *ssp)
   */
  static unsigned long srcu_get_delay(struct srcu_struct *ssp)
  {
+       unsigned long gpstart;
+       unsigned long j;
        unsigned long jbase = SRCU_INTERVAL;
if (ULONG_CMP_LT(READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_gp_seq), READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_gp_seq_needed_exp)))
                jbase = 0;
-       if (rcu_seq_state(READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_gp_seq)))
-               jbase += jiffies - READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_gp_start);
-       if (!jbase) {
-               WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_n_exp_nodelay, 
READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_n_exp_nodelay) + 1);
-               if (READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_n_exp_nodelay) > SRCU_MAX_NODELAY_PHASE)
-                       jbase = 1;
+       if (rcu_seq_state(READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_gp_seq))) {
+               j = jiffies - 1;
+               gpstart = READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_gp_start);
+               if (time_after(j, gpstart))
+                       jbase += j - gpstart;
+               if (!jbase) {
+                       WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_n_exp_nodelay, 
READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_n_exp_nodelay) + 1);
+                       if (READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_n_exp_nodelay) > 
SRCU_MAX_NODELAY_PHASE)
+                               jbase = 1;
+               }
        }
        return jbase > SRCU_MAX_INTERVAL ? SRCU_MAX_INTERVAL : jbase;
  }
.





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]