Received: by 2002:a25:c205:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id s5csp1110488ybf; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 01:03:20 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzeMH/QlOAHidoSIy+fep8c+oYWJevMMik7gTYOrkQ2UQVD0Ltu2T/i3XskB1QQYG5KqnBN X-Received: by 2002:aca:43c1:: with SMTP id q184mr7849527oia.116.1583053400689; Sun, 01 Mar 2020 01:03:20 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1583053400; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=hl709AT3wSV5wikWltw+dHgfPOrVky3TSheCp0uZAcPZHCb6sVNHCQHG0TlRg/mveb Egh4LGRCH/Eybu+78GYvY3R87LLHrtXAP07H9a5Vudi9lSCWpVKaIjW7SX1XMf1PaXA7 0NE7G3TOn1nly3hvGD5QsrOS3PytAYx52xDv49lM9P6LCzfZiGnvSsEtq6IAwGtPFyFV ZErRFZVEIvJX0cEVhWtuSwONqAZPOLmDx/Pc+Nh82pAfsFebKQndlnIGLtG0MRXWr8Ng YAQLNfHEVccJ0cyrnM8E8er1MYxI78PaxX2/ePI8cVWjVreJOIax+G730Y5FygO8Pri+ heFg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=/2SPxK9O+2jTDX8JYcBWUQnudjm6Azly8e5Ra+nimx8=; b=B8n7MfZIJnicsyryvyF8u6GlzQBDcgX51vieMfuGQuLK2krg4ZZUJGG+tkweN06IWN O3UN5eizi8fjIOLwwLWU7vngaWof7odfExyasPX4C9sg5SfUEyp1NKN3stO/GMd3vC16 iKqCa71ZYM4npqG+gQjLPUdw+GBbgb7g4w7Lknh/vzPILl4vqoSEK1T5JyPF2kTJ0HKM YsWMdbadEIqlzcYLkKRzb9j8bW2c7dKSe+OGFP7B493Oy9wJMP4C/Ca5IIRn3ULEYhWE XHo07qTdBZiwK7u9QiToOvznagt94Wymtf1ckwBqygtcWekYKq/L3EvcmdeRX/tqGnfK XdUw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id w5si4324024otk.244.2020.03.01.01.03.07; Sun, 01 Mar 2020 01:03:20 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725884AbgCAJCt (ORCPT + 99 others); Sun, 1 Mar 2020 04:02:49 -0500 Received: from relay7-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.200]:52389 "EHLO relay7-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725747AbgCAJCt (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Mar 2020 04:02:49 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 172.58.43.63 Received: from localhost (unknown [172.58.43.63]) (Authenticated sender: josh@joshtriplett.org) by relay7-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D74920006; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 09:02:43 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2020 01:02:39 -0800 From: Josh Triplett To: Chaitanya Kulkarni Cc: Keith Busch , Jens Axboe , Christoph Hellwig , Sagi Grimberg , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme: Check for readiness more quickly, to speed up boot time Message-ID: <20200301090239.GC216567@localhost> References: <20200229025228.GA203607@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 02:01:05AM +0000, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote: > Nit:- please have a look at the patch subject line and make > sure it is not exceeding the required length. Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst says "no more than 70-75 characters,", and the summary here is 61. Checkpatch similarly says 75. Is there somewhere I missed that gives a different number? > One question though, have you seen similar kind of performance > improvements when system is booted ? I tested with nvme compiled in, both with one NVMe device and two NVMe devices, and in both cases it provided a *substantial* speedup. I didn't test nvme compiled as a module, but in general I'd expect that if you're trying to optimize initialization time you'd want to build it in. > I took some numbers and couldn't see similar benefit. See [1] :- > > Without :- > > 714.532560-714.456099 = .076461 > 721.189886-721.110845 = .079041 > 727.836938-727.765572 = .071366 > 734.589886-734.519779 = .070107 > 741.244296-741.173503 = .070793 With numbers in this range, I don't see how you could be hitting the 100ms msleep at all, even once, which means this patch shouldn't have any effect on the timing you're measuring. - Josh Triplett