[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120416154429.GB4654@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:44:29 -0400
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Xen Devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
Stephan Diestelhorst <stephan.diestelhorst@....com>,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
Attilio Rao <attilio.rao@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V6 0/11] Paravirtualized ticketlocks
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 09:37:45AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> [2012-03-31 00:07:58]:
>
> > I know that Peter is going to go berserk on me, but if we are running
> > a paravirt guest then it's simple to provide a mechanism which allows
> > the host (aka hypervisor) to check that in the guest just by looking
> > at some global state.
> >
> > So if a guest exits due to an external event it's easy to inspect the
> > state of that guest and avoid to schedule away when it was interrupted
> > in a spinlock held section. That guest/host shared state needs to be
> > modified to indicate the guest to invoke an exit when the last nested
> > lock has been released.
>
> I had attempted something like that long back:
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/6/3/4
>
> The issue is with ticketlocks though. VCPUs could go into a spin w/o
> a lock being held by anybody. Say VCPUs 1-99 try to grab a lock in
> that order (on a host with one cpu). VCPU1 wins (after VCPU0 releases it)
> and releases the lock. VCPU1 is next eligible to take the lock. If
> that is not scheduled early enough by host, then remaining vcpus would keep
> spinning (even though lock is technically not held by anybody) w/o making
> forward progress.
>
> In that situation, what we really need is for the guest to hint to host
> scheduler to schedule VCPU1 early (via yield_to or something similar).
>
> The current pv-spinlock patches however does not track which vcpu is
> spinning at what head of the ticketlock. I suppose we can consider
> that optimization in future and see how much benefit it provides (over
> plain yield/sleep the way its done now).
Right. I think Jeremy played around with this some time?
>
> Do you see any issues if we take in what we have today and address the
> finer-grained optimization as next step?
I think that is the proper course - these patches show
that on baremetal we don't incur performance regressions and in
virtualization case we benefit greatly. Since these are the basic
building blocks of a kernel - taking it slow and just adding
this set of patches for v3.5 is a good idea - and then building on top
of that for further refinement.
>
> - vatsa
--
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