[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACGkMEutdd=9c-2h5ijMkgUzEqNPtUCXAum7bm8W7a6m62i_Mg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 14:02:16 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...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 1:55 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
I think what you meant is using a dedicated rwlock instead of trying
to reuse one of the airq_info locks.
If this is true, it should be fine.
Thanks
>
> > >
> > > --
> > > MST
> > >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists