[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FFD65E0.500@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:39:12 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
CC: 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>,
Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
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 07/11/2012 02:18 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 11/07/12 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?
>
> maybe vcpu_no_progress instead of pause_loop_exited
Ah, I thouht you objected to the CONFIG var. Maybe call it
cpu_relax_intercepted since that's the linuxy name for the instruction.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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