Thanks Joseph!

I now believe I'm seeing two different issues in 4.8 that are not in 4.4 and 
slow down my boot, which is very confusing.
- #1: High number of kworkers (fixed in 4.8 using the two patches and bisected 
by Doug Smythies already)
- #2: Unknown other issue. I've noticed that when compiling a simple 
cmake/ninja project using 6 compiler processes on my rather old 4-core CPU, 
some kernels show odd behaviour that might also slow down the boot process.

When compiling that cmake project on 4.4, 4.6-7afd16f or 4.7-rc1, issue
#2 does not exist. While compilation takes place on 4.8 (no matter if
kworker patches are applied or not), my mouse cursor becomes sluggish
and it takes a long time to just switch to another window in Unity 7.
Compilation speed is unaffected though, so maybe just some kind of task
switching problem, not a CPU utilization issue.

So that makes it quite difficult to tell if any given kernel is good or
bad by just looking at the boot time. As far as I can tell, this is the
current list of kernels and the issues they have, where #2 was detected
using the cmake compilation behaviour and #1 by the number of kworker
processes after boot (should be ~35):

4.8 + patches: #2
4.8: #1, #2
4.7-rc1: #1
4.6-7afd16f: none
4.4: none

4.8 has about the same wall clock boot time as 4.7-rc1 in my case, while
4.8+patches is ~5 seconds faster, but that's hard to tell, since boot
times vary by 2-3 seconds anyway. So #1 apparently dominates the slow
down. I've only been able to get a "perfect" <10sec boot time from GRUB
to lightdm with 4.4 and 4.6-7afd16f. So the order of boot speed is like
this right now for me:

4.4|4.6-7afd16f < 4.8+patches < 4.8|4.7-rc1

Sorry for the long-winded comment, I just feel uncomfortable calling
this kernel "good" or "bad" without explaining why 4.7-rc1 might
actually be "good" on my system concerning issue #2. 4.6-7afd16f appears
to be as "good" as 4.4 in any case.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Packages, which is subscribed to linux in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1626436

Title:
  [4.8 regression] boot has become very slow

Status in linux package in Ubuntu:
  In Progress
Status in linux source package in Yakkety:
  In Progress

Bug description:
  With yakkety's recent update from linux 4.4 to 4.8 booting has become
  a lot slower. It's not one service in particular, but without "quiet"
  and "splash" you can now easily read every single line instead of that
  whole wall of text zipping by. It now takes over 20s instead of ~10
  seconds to boot.

  This is even more dramatic when factoring out the recent boot hang of
  NetworkManager (bug 1622893) and disabling lightdm:

    sudo systemctl mask NetworkManager NetworkManager-wait-online
  lightdm

  then booting with 4.4 takes 1.5s and with 4.8 19.5s (!).

  Some excerps from systemd-analyze blame:

  4.4:
             474ms postfix@-.service
             395ms lxd-containers.service
             305ms networking.service

  4.8:
            4.578s postfix@-.service
            7.300s lxd-containers.service
            6.285s networking.service

  I attach the full outputs of critical-chain and analyze for 4.4 and
  4.8 for reference.

  This is much less noticeable in the running system. There is no
  immediate feeling of sluggishness (although my system is by and large
  idle).

  I compared the time of sbuilding colord under similar circumstances
  (-j4, building on tmpfs, thus no hard disk delays; running with fully
  pre-loaded apt-cacher-ng thus no random network delays), and with 4.4
  it takes 6.5 minutes and with 4.8 it takes 7.5. So that got a bit
  slower, but much less dramatically than during boot, so this is either
  happening when a lot of processes run in parallel, or is perhaps
  related to setting up cgroups.

  One thing I noticed that during sbuild in 4.8 "top" shows ridiculous
  loads (~ 250) under 4.8, while it's around 4 or 5 under 4.4. But that
  doesn't reflect in actual sluggishness, so this might be just an
  unrelated bug.

  ProblemType: Bug
  DistroRelease: Ubuntu 16.10
  Package: linux-image-4.8.0-11-generic 4.8.0-11.12
  ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 4.8.0-11.12-generic 4.8.0-rc6
  Uname: Linux 4.8.0-11-generic x86_64
  ApportVersion: 2.20.3-0ubuntu7
  Architecture: amd64
  AudioDevicesInUse:
   USER        PID ACCESS COMMAND
   /dev/snd/pcmC0D0c:   martin     3049 F...m pulseaudio
   /dev/snd/pcmC0D0p:   martin     3049 F...m pulseaudio
   /dev/snd/controlC0:  martin     3049 F.... pulseaudio
  Date: Thu Sep 22 09:42:56 2016
  EcryptfsInUse: Yes
  MachineType: LENOVO 2324CTO
  ProcEnviron:
   TERM=linux
   PATH=(custom, no user)
   XDG_RUNTIME_DIR=<set>
   LANG=de_DE.UTF-8
   SHELL=/bin/bash
  ProcFB: 0 inteldrmfb
  ProcKernelCmdLine: BOOT_IMAGE=/@/boot/vmlinuz-4.8.0-11-generic.efi.signed 
root=UUID=f86539b0-3a1b-4372-83b0-acdd029ade68 ro rootflags=subvol=@ 
systemd.debug-shell
  RelatedPackageVersions:
   linux-restricted-modules-4.8.0-11-generic N/A
   linux-backports-modules-4.8.0-11-generic  N/A
   linux-firmware                            1.161
  SourcePackage: linux
  UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install)
  dmi.bios.date: 07/09/2013
  dmi.bios.vendor: LENOVO
  dmi.bios.version: G2ET95WW (2.55 )
  dmi.board.asset.tag: Not Available
  dmi.board.name: 2324CTO
  dmi.board.vendor: LENOVO
  dmi.board.version: 0B98401 Pro
  dmi.chassis.asset.tag: No Asset Information
  dmi.chassis.type: 10
  dmi.chassis.vendor: LENOVO
  dmi.chassis.version: Not Available
  dmi.modalias: 
dmi:bvnLENOVO:bvrG2ET95WW(2.55):bd07/09/2013:svnLENOVO:pn2324CTO:pvrThinkPadX230:rvnLENOVO:rn2324CTO:rvr0B98401Pro:cvnLENOVO:ct10:cvrNotAvailable:
  dmi.product.name: 2324CTO
  dmi.product.version: ThinkPad X230
  dmi.sys.vendor: LENOVO

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1626436/+subscriptions

-- 
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kernel-packages
Post to     : kernel-packages@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kernel-packages
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Reply via email to