lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHv3 1/1] locking/qspinlock/x86: Avoid test-and-set when PV_DEDICATED is set
Hey Radim,

On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 03:17:33PM +0100, Radim Krčmář wrote:

<cut>

>
> This is what I'm doubting, because the patch is adding about two
> thousand cycles to every spinlock-taken path.
> Doesn't this patch yield better results?
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> index 3df743b60c80..d9225e48c11a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> @@ -676,6 +676,12 @@ void __init kvm_spinlock_init(void)
> {
> if (!kvm_para_available())
> return;
> +
> + if (kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_DEDICATED)) {
> + static_branch_disable(&virt_spin_lock_key);
> + return;
> + }
> +

Yes, the above suggestion is a much better approach. The code has probably changed from the time I wrote the first version. I will refresh with the above suggestion.


> /* Does host kernel support KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT? */
> if (!kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT))
> return;
>
> > However, the key aspect
> > here is this patch gives a way for the host to instruct the guest to use qspinlock.
> > Even with Longman's patch which allows guest to select the spinlock implementation,
> > there should still be the auto-select mode. In such mode, PV_DEDICATED should
> > allow the host to get the guest to use qspinlock, without, the guest will fallback
> > to tas when PV_UNHALT == 0.
>
> I agree that a flag can be useful for certains setups.

Cool!

>

--
All the best,
Eduardo Valentin

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-16 05:55    [W:0.091 / U:0.448 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site