Received: by 2002:ab2:2994:0:b0:1ef:ca3e:3cd5 with SMTP id n20csp97204lqb; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 06:31:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AJvYcCWaH9tiCOLp5hkL7rnL37DPkbnDLxMdlVSKfoz5vpHGiW2XUTMN+UbFhUj+KSB0KMvPKC4Cey+6mgxaOt+YnkdtSePBnpx6ezqeeToQeg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEB+eekQUMjsdEFF/qqJlyLByWUhgj0ZkioVJedVEr8WnU5ygLgHxW9OsR6qub9VSh8A5Fz X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:1608:b0:1a3:1180:4232 with SMTP id l8-20020a056a20160800b001a311804232mr2682495pzj.29.1710423096415; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 06:31:36 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from sy.mirrors.kernel.org (sy.mirrors.kernel.org. [2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d9-20020a631d09000000b005dc8f60cdf9si593506pgd.302.2024.03.14.06.31.35 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 14 Mar 2024 06:31:36 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-103302-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@intel.com header.s=Intel header.b=kbmw6TDx; arc=fail (body hash mismatch); spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-103302-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="linux-kernel+bounces-103302-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org"; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Received: from smtp.subspace.kernel.org (wormhole.subspace.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sy.mirrors.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BD09B22727 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:30:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40D15CDC8; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:30:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="kbmw6TDx" Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 613775BAFC; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:30:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.19 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710423044; cv=none; b=vAdTrYm5TqqUfFEdUVZUnVi16vg/CL4Z0L0oGL6Pf7JaYbSYcGx5nfzFR3mW8ngjtqfYIbHQCFcgVB8j1Tctk3yGRJfNWMYOZzh34z/8zqZqFeN2dalM/Nbz/o4ipltx1TJCc4yGVOi00RAJNMBlBWxPE8ng25G1FqhKfOhIkaE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710423044; c=relaxed/simple; bh=9oG1mXXWnpAIYRCoZESr0mUiFQQQyz22CCg2ShGWqJQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=NqrlLkinxvx3OSz1689vv6Za0oNXqwaWQG3krhuE8bzXtHiMMaQvS7RgOdRnGOfQmq1bud11WzRxzoKeeFl1FNJKA6nTsT1OB+FAy/Lu4smNpZYgafM/ZpzIJfkvM9Enc6VbEn/iVtcPBtd9UsQcPixsGTnuwOMaLYTwR9kDlHY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=kbmw6TDx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.19 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1710423042; x=1741959042; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=9oG1mXXWnpAIYRCoZESr0mUiFQQQyz22CCg2ShGWqJQ=; b=kbmw6TDxPpoU3YXKrmXWnMvCt2oBsiBzI0DQeU6MqQ7DX/g50B79WKZV bH2dDn5tWBiFdHhbh/NzpYxIBAp5Adt7tF3r3Dw9AKU5aAEUXpynLPKaz oOjMUTG2TArv3j24lL+Z+Tbmuh0DdD4dLBXOPGzU4Yzdqu01waE+4nTmU 3XhoRbVRm2ax2Tfq+6X3b5HdeMXNEyXa62nVr9HPk5TGrhsJSWN+VsxkZ w1O+JAOPe5hm6loO610kEwhOXn4vJie9X3bBxV8r1WBKRAF2iLubQmuX7 yKHVjjyYliUyy+b/i91dOigvhCOhQ9g56tepS9Qmd7zpcDKmR4chZ5yR8 g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11012"; a="5093539" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,125,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="5093539" Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmvoesa113.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Mar 2024 06:30:41 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11012"; a="914460500" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,125,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="914460500" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.54]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Mar 2024 06:30:40 -0700 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1rklAL-0000000CWbf-35s4; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:30:37 +0200 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:30:37 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Paul Menzel Cc: Lee Jones , Jarkko Nikula , linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, LKML Subject: Re: `intel_lpss_pci_driver_init` takes 23.8 ms Message-ID: References: <20240208085928.GB689448@google.com> <49d0a968-7570-43ac-963c-47b9c6dcc353@molgen.mpg.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <49d0a968-7570-43ac-963c-47b9c6dcc353@molgen.mpg.de> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 08:38:15PM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote: > Am 08.02.24 um 18:33 schrieb Andy Shevchenko: > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 08:59:28AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > On Tue, 06 Feb 2024, Paul Menzel wrote: .. > > > > On the Dell XPS 13 9360 and Linux 6.8-rc3+, `intel_lpss_pci_driver_init()` > > > > takes 23.8 ms, making it one of Linux’ longer init functions on this device: > > > > Does it mean on the previous releases it was different? > > I mean is it a regression or always was like this? Okay. .. > but this seems to have a big affect on ACPI/ASL operations, and execution > time increases to 125 ms. This breaks down to > > 1. `i2c_acpi_find_bus_speed()` (96.985 ms @ 3.008753), where > `acpi_walk_namespace()` takes this time. > 2. `i2c_dw_probe_master()` (27.161 ms @ 3.105964) → > i2c_add_numbered_adapter()` → `i2c_add_adapter()` → `i2c_register_adapter()` > → `i2c_acpi_register_devices()` → `acpi_ns_walk_namespace()` (24.178 ms @ > 3.108927) > > No idea if this is a red herring, and the long time is actually do to > something else. Might be related https://github.com/acpica/acpica/pull/897 Wonder if it helps you anyhow. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko