Re: [PATCH] separate usb_address0 mutexes for each host

2014-05-15 Thread Alan Stern
On Wed, 14 May 2014, Todd E Brandt wrote: Does this really save any meaningful amount of time? Have you measured it? Yes, here's the test results from the use-case that inspired the patch: https://01.org/suspendresume/blogs/tebrandt/2014/usb-resume-parallel-enumeration-separate-hosts

Re: [PATCH] separate usb_address0 mutexes for each host

2014-05-15 Thread Todd E Brandt
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:05:55AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: On Wed, 14 May 2014, Todd E Brandt wrote: Does this really save any meaningful amount of time? Have you measured it? Yes, here's the test results from the use-case that inspired the patch:

Re: [PATCH] separate usb_address0 mutexes for each host

2014-05-15 Thread Alan Stern
On Thu, 15 May 2014, Todd E Brandt wrote: Hmmm. Why did the kernel end up re-initializing those devices in the first place? Under normal circumstances that wouldn't happen when resuming from system suspend. If you were resuming from hibernation, then sure. But hibernation is

Re: [PATCH] separate usb_address0 mutexes for each host

2014-05-14 Thread Alan Stern
On Tue, 13 May 2014, Todd E Brandt wrote: This patch creates a separate instance of the usb_address0 mutex for each host controller, and attaches it to the host controller device struct. This allows devices on separate hosts to be enumerated in parallel; saving time. In the current code,

Re: [PATCH] separate usb_address0 mutexes for each host

2014-05-14 Thread Todd E Brandt
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:27:20AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: On Tue, 13 May 2014, Todd E Brandt wrote: This patch creates a separate instance of the usb_address0 mutex for each host controller, and attaches it to the host controller device struct. This allows devices on separate

Re: [PATCH] separate usb_address0 mutexes for each host

2014-05-14 Thread Todd E Brandt
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 03:55:30PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:58:23PM -0700, Todd E Brandt wrote: This patch creates a separate instance of the usb_address0 mutex for each host controller, and attaches it to the host controller device struct. This allows devices

[PATCH] separate usb_address0 mutexes for each host

2014-05-13 Thread Todd E Brandt
This patch creates a separate instance of the usb_address0 mutex for each host controller, and attaches it to the host controller device struct. This allows devices on separate hosts to be enumerated in parallel; saving time. In the current code, there is a single, global instance of the

Re: [PATCH] separate usb_address0 mutexes for each host

2014-05-13 Thread Greg KH
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:58:23PM -0700, Todd E Brandt wrote: This patch creates a separate instance of the usb_address0 mutex for each host controller, and attaches it to the host controller device struct. This allows devices on separate hosts to be enumerated in parallel; saving time. In