[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dbc50272-a4f5-ce7c-ba71-75031521f420@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 20:46:46 +0800
From: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org,
pbonzini@...hat.com, rkrcmar@...hat.com,
sean.j.christopherson@...el.com, wanpengli@...cent.com,
jmattson@...gle.com, joro@...tes.org, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
jgross@...e.com, peterz@...radead.org, will@...nel.org,
linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
mikelley@...rosoft.com, kys@...rosoft.com, haiyangz@...rosoft.com,
sthemmin@...rosoft.com, sashal@...nel.org,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/5] x86/kvm: Add "nopvspin" parameter to disable PV
spinlocks
Hi Vitaly,
On 2019/10/22 19:36, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Zhenzhong Duan<zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com> writes:
>
...snip
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
>> index 249f14a..3945aa5 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
>> @@ -825,18 +825,36 @@ __visible bool __kvm_vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu)
>> */
>> void __init kvm_spinlock_init(void)
>> {
>> - /* Does host kernel support KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT? */
>> - if (!kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT))
>> + /*
>> + * In case host doesn't support KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT there is still an
>> + * advantage of keeping virt_spin_lock_key enabled: virt_spin_lock() is
>> + * preferred over native qspinlock when vCPU is preempted.
>> + */
>> + if (!kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT)) {
>> + pr_info("PV spinlocks disabled, no host support.\n");
>> return;
>> + }
>>
>> + /*
>> + * Disable PV qspinlock and use native qspinlock when dedicated pCPUs
>> + * are available.
>> + */
>> if (kvm_para_has_hint(KVM_HINTS_REALTIME)) {
>> - static_branch_disable(&virt_spin_lock_key);
>> - return;
>> + pr_info("PV spinlocks disabled with KVM_HINTS_REALTIME hints.\n");
>> + goto out;
>> }
>>
>> - /* Don't use the pvqspinlock code if there is only 1 vCPU. */
>> - if (num_possible_cpus() == 1)
>> - return;
>> + if (num_possible_cpus() == 1) {
>> + pr_info("PV spinlocks disabled, single CPU.\n");
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (nopvspin) {
>> + pr_info("PV spinlocks disabled, forced by \"nopvspin\" parameter.\n");
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> + pr_info("PV spinlocks enabled\n");
>>
>> __pv_init_lock_hash();
>> pv_ops.lock.queued_spin_lock_slowpath = __pv_queued_spin_lock_slowpath;
>> @@ -849,6 +867,8 @@ void __init kvm_spinlock_init(void)
>> pv_ops.lock.vcpu_is_preempted =
>> PV_CALLEE_SAVE(__kvm_vcpu_is_preempted);
>> }
>> +out:
>> + static_branch_disable(&virt_spin_lock_key);
> You probably need to add 'return' before 'out:' as it seems you're
> disabling virt_spin_lock_key in all cases now).
virt_spin_lock_key is kept enabled in !kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT)
case which is the only case virt_spin_lock() optimization is used.
When PV qspinlock is enabled, virt_spin_lock() isn't called in
__pv_queued_spin_lock_slowpath() in which case we don't care
virt_spin_lock_key's value.
So adding 'return' or not are both ok, I chosed to save a line,
let me know if you prefer to add a 'return' and I'll change it.
btw: __pv_queued_spin_lock_slowpath() is alias of queued_spin_lock_slowpath()
Thanks
Zhenzhong
Powered by blists - more mailing lists