[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 11:31:48 +0100
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
<boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, <stefan.bader@...onical.com>,
<stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>, <jeremy@...p.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] xen/smp: Update pv_lock_ops functions before alternative
code starts under PVHVM
On 07/09/13 14:46, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> Before this patch we would patch all of the pv_lock_ops sites
> using alternative assembler. Then later in the bootup cycle
> change the unlock_kick and lock_spinning to the Xen specific -
> without re patching.
>
> That meant that for the core of the kernel we would be running
> with the baremetal version of unlock_kick and lock_spinning while
> for modules we would have the proper Xen specific slowpaths.
>
> As most of the module uses some API from the core kernel that ended
> up with slowpath lockers waiting forever to be kicked (b/c they
> would be using the Xen specific slowpath logic). And the
> kick never came b/c the unlock path that was taken was the
> baremetal one.
>
> On PV we do not have the problem as we initialise before the
> alternative code kicks in.
>
> The fix is to move the updating of the pv_lock_ops function
> before the alternative code starts patching.
This comment seems odd. The xen_spinlock_init() call is added not moved.
> --- a/arch/x86/xen/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/smp.c
> @@ -731,4 +731,12 @@ void __init xen_hvm_smp_init(void)
> smp_ops.cpu_die = xen_hvm_cpu_die;
> smp_ops.send_call_func_ipi = xen_smp_send_call_function_ipi;
> smp_ops.send_call_func_single_ipi = xen_smp_send_call_function_single_ipi;
> +
> + /*
> + * The alternative logic (which patches the unlock/lock) runs before
> + * the smp bootup up code is activated. That meant we would never patch
> + * the core of the kernel with proper paravirt interfaces but would patch
> + * modules.
> + */
> + xen_init_spinlocks();
PV does this in xen_smp_prepare_boot_cpu. It would be better if the
PVHVM case followed this same pattern and provide a smp_prepare_boot_cpu
implementation to do this?
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists