linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 09/11] pvqspinlock, x86: Add para-virtualization support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:27:19 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@...il.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 09/11] pvqspinlock, x86: Add para-virtualization
 support

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 01:15:53PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 10/24/2014 06:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 04:53:27PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>The additional register pressure may just cause a few more register moves
> >>which should be negligible in the overall performance . The additional
> >>icache pressure, however, may have some impact on performance. I was trying
> >>to balance the performance of the pv and non-pv versions so that we won't
> >>penalize the pv code too much for a bit more performance in the non-pv code.
> >>Doing it your way will add a lot of function call and register
> >>saving/restoring to the pv code.
> >If people care about performance they should not be using virt crap :-)
> >
> >I only really care about bare metal.
> 
> Yes, I am aware of that. However, the whole point of doing PV spinlock is to
> improve performance in a virtual guest.

Anything that avoids the lock holder preemption nonsense is a _massive_
win for them, a few function calls should not even register on that
scale.

> +#ifdef _GEN_PV_LOCK_SLOWPATH
> +static void pv_queue_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
> +#else
>  void queue_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
> +#endif

If you have two functions you might as well use the PV stuff to patch in
the right function call at the usage sites and avoid:

> +       if (pv_enabled()) {
> +               pv_queue_spin_lock_slowpath(lock, val);
> +               return;
> +       }

this alltogether.

>         this_cpu_dec(mcs_nodes[0].count);
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(queue_spin_lock_slowpath);
> +
> +#if !defined(_GEN_PV_LOCK_SLOWPATH) && defined(CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS)
> +/*
> + * Generate the PV version of the queue_spin_lock_slowpath function
> + */
> +#undef pv_init_node
> +#undef pv_wait_check
> +#undef pv_link_and_wait_node
> +#undef pv_wait_head
> +#undef EXPORT_SYMBOL
> +#undef in_pv_code
> +
> +#define _GEN_PV_LOCK_SLOWPATH
> +#define EXPORT_SYMBOL(x)
> +#define in_pv_code     return_true
> +#define pv_enabled     return_false
> +
> +#include "qspinlock.c"
> +
> +#endif

That's properly disgusting :-) But a lot better than actually
duplicating everything I suppose.
--
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/