lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 1/4] x86/kvm: Add "nopvspin" parameter to disable PV spinlocks
From
Date
On 2019/10/4 22:52, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:

> On 10/3/19 10:02 AM, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
>> void __init kvm_spinlock_init(void)
>> {
>> - /* Does host kernel support KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT? */
>> - if (!kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT))
>> - return;
>> -
>> - if (kvm_para_has_hint(KVM_HINTS_REALTIME))
>> + /*
>> + * Don't use the pvqspinlock code if no KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT feature
>> + * support, or there is REALTIME hints or only 1 vCPU.
>> + */
>> + if (!kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT) ||
>> + kvm_para_has_hint(KVM_HINTS_REALTIME) ||
>> + num_possible_cpus() == 1) {
>> + pr_info("PV spinlocks disabled\n");
>> return;
>> + }
>>
>> - /* Don't use the pvqspinlock code if there is only 1 vCPU. */
>> - if (num_possible_cpus() == 1)
>> + if (nopvspin) {
>> + pr_info("PV spinlocks disabled forced by \"nopvspin\" parameter.\n");
>> + static_branch_disable(&virt_spin_lock_key);
> Would it make sense to bring here the other site where the key is
> disabled (in kvm_smp_prepare_cpus())?

Thanks for point out, I'll do it. Just not clear if I should do that in a separate patch,
there is a history about that code:

Its original place was here and then moved to kvm_smp_prepare_cpus() by below commit:
34226b6b ("KVM: X86: Fix setup the virt_spin_lock_key before static key get initialized")
which fixed jump_label_init() calling late issue.

Then 8990cac6 ("x86/jump_label: Initialize static branching early") move jump_label_init()
early, so commit 34226b6b could be reverted.

>
> (and, in fact, shouldn't all of the checks that result in early return
> above disable the key?)

I think we should enable he key for !kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT) case,
there is lock holder preemption issue as qspinlock is fair lock, virt_spin_lock()
is an optimization to that, imaging one pcpu running 10 vcpus of same guest
contending a same lock.

For kvm_para_has_hint(KVM_HINTS_REALTIME) case, hypervisor hints there is
no preemption and we should disable virt_spin_lock_key to use native qspinlock.

For the UP case, we don't care virt_spin_lock_key value.

For nopvspin case, we intentionally check native qspinlock code performance,
compare it with PV qspinlock, etc. So virt_spin_lock() optimization should be disabled.

Let me know if anything wrong with above understanding. Thanks

Zhenzhong

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-06 09:52    [W:0.093 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site