[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e0f336e9-d167-18a8-0af8-0d5517bae9a5@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:37:32 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] KVM: vCPU kick tax cut for running vCPU
On 20/10/21 12:02, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
>> + /* The cost of rcu_read_lock() is nontrivial for preemptable RCU. */
>> + if (!rcuwait_active(w))
>> + return ret;
>> +#endif
>> +
>> + rcu_read_lock();
>> +
>> task = rcu_dereference(w->task);
>> if (task)
>> ret = wake_up_process(task);
>>
>> (If you don't, rcu_read_lock is essentially preempt_disable() and it
>> should not have a large overhead). You still need the memory barrier
>> though, in order to avoid missed wakeups; shameless plug for my
>> article athttps://lwn.net/Articles/847481/.
> You are right, the cost of rcu_read_lock() for preemptable RCU
> introduces too much overhead, do you want to send a separate patch?
Yes, I'll take care of this. Thanks!
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists