Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/1] multi-threading device shutdown
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     steven.sistare@oracle.com, daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com,
        intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        alexander.duyck@gmail.com, tobin@apporbit.com
References: <20180507155402.10086-1-pasha.tatashin@oracle.com>
 <20180514150336.GA18769@kroah.com>
From:   Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <ca8b0bf8-e848-be2a-c9f5-b01ee65551b3@oracle.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 May 2018 12:54:37 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180514150336.GA18769@kroah.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 05/14/2018 11:03 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 11:54:01AM -0400, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
>> Changelog
>> v2 - v3
>> 	- Fixed warning from kbuild test.
>> 	- Moved device_lock/device_unlock inside device_shutdown_tree().
>>
>> v1 - v2
>> 	- It turns out we cannot lock more than MAX_LOCK_DEPTH by a single
>> 	  thread. (By default this value is 48), and is used to detect
>> 	  deadlocks. So, I re-wrote the code to only lock one devices per
>> 	  thread instead of pre-locking all devices by the main thread.
>> 	- Addressed comments from Tobin C. Harding.
>> 	- As suggested by Alexander Duyck removed ixgbe changes. It can be
>> 	  done as a separate work scaling RTNL mutex.
>>
>> Do a faster shutdown by calling dev->*->shutdown(dev) in parallel.
>> device_shutdown() calls these functions for every single device but
>> only using one thread.
>>
>> Since, nothing else is running on the machine by the device_shutdown()
>> s called, there is no reason not to utilize all the available CPU
>> resources.
> 
> Ah, we can hope so.  I bet this is going to break something, so can we
> have some way of turning it on/off dynamically for when it does?

Hi Greg,

Sure, I will add a kernel parameter to optionally disable this feature in the next patch revision.

Thank you,
Pavel

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
>