[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <39DA3B9A-87D6-4EA5-B1FF-B6E30733EF7B@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:16:41 +0200
From: Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
S390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
Carsten Otte <cotte@...ibm.com>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
chegu vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>,
"Andrew M. Theurer" <habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 <x86@...nel.org>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>, linux390@...ibm.com,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@...il.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>,
Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving directed yield in PLE handler
On 11.07.2012, at 13:04, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/11/2012 01:17 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> On 11/07/12 11:06, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> Almost all s390 kernels use diag9c (directed yield to a given guest cpu) for spinlocks, though.
>>>
>>> Perhaps x86 should copy this.
>>
>> See arch/s390/lib/spinlock.c
>> The basic idea is using several heuristics:
>> - loop for a given amount of loops
>> - check if the lock holder is currently scheduled by the hypervisor
>> (smp_vcpu_scheduled, which uses the sigp sense running instruction)
>> Dont know if such thing is available for x86. It must be a lot cheaper
>> than a guest exit to be useful
>
> We could make it available via shared memory, updated using preempt
> notifiers. Of course piling on more pv makes this less attractive.
>
>> - if lock holder is not running and we looped for a while do a directed
>> yield to that cpu.
>>
>>>
>>>> So there is no win here, but there are other cases were diag44 is used, e.g. cpu_relax.
>>>> I have to double check with others, if these cases are critical, but for now, it seems
>>>> that your dummy implementation for s390 is just fine. After all it is a no-op until
>>>> we implement something.
>>>
>>> Does the data structure make sense for you? If so we can move it to
>>> common code (and manage it in kvm_vcpu_on_spin()). We can guard it with
>>> CONFIG_KVM_HAVE_CPU_RELAX_INTERCEPT or something, so other archs don't
>>> have to pay anything.
>>
>> Ignoring the name,
>
> What name would you suggest?
>
>> yes the data structure itself seems based on the algorithm
>> and not on arch specific things. That should work. If we move that to common
>> code then s390 will use that scheme automatically for the cases were we call
>> kvm_vcpu_on_spin(). All others archs as well.
>
> ARM doesn't have an instruction for cpu_relax(), so it can't intercept
> it. Given ppc's dislike of overcommit,
What dislike of overcommit?
> and the way it implements cpu_relax() by adjusting hw thread priority,
Yeah, I don't think we can intercept relaxing. It's basically a nop-like instruction that gives hardware hints on its current priorities.
That said, we can always add PV code.
Alex
--
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