[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220428015318-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 01:55:12 -0400
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc: Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>,
eperezma <eperezma@...hat.com>, Cindy Lu <lulu@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 6/9] virtio-ccw: implement synchronize_cbs()
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 01:51:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 1:24 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 11:04:41AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > But my guess is that rwlock + some testing for the legacy indicator case
> > > > just to double check if there is a heavy regression despite of our
> > > > expectations to see none should do the trick.
> > >
> > > I suggest this, rwlock (for not airq) seems better than spinlock, but
> > > at worst case it will cause cache line bouncing. But I wonder if it's
> > > noticeable (anyhow it has been used for airq).
> > >
> > > Thanks
> >
> > Which existing rwlock does airq use right now? Can we take it to sync?
>
> It's the rwlock in airq_info, it has already been used in this patch.
>
> write_lock(&info->lock);
> write_unlock(&info->lock);
>
> But the problem is, it looks to me there could be a case that airq is
> not used, (virtio_ccw_int_hander()). That's why the patch use a
> spinlock, it could be optimized with using a rwlock as well.
>
> Thanks
Ah, right. So let's take that on the legacy path too and Halil promises
to test to make sure performance isn't impacted too badly?
> >
> > --
> > MST
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists