On 10/27/2014 02:02 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 01:38:20PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
On 10/24/2014 04:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 02:10:38PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
Since enabling paravirt spinlock will disable unlock function inlining,
a jump label can be added to the unlock function without adding patch
sites all over the kernel.
But you don't have to. My patches allowed for the inline to remain,
again reducing the overhead of enabling PV spinlocks while running on a
real machine.
Look at:
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140615130154.213923590@xxxxxxxxx
In particular this hunk:
Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt_patch_64.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt_patch_64.c
+++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt_patch_64.c
@@ -22,6 +22,10 @@ DEF_NATIVE(pv_cpu_ops, swapgs, "swapgs")
DEF_NATIVE(, mov32, "mov %edi, %eax");
DEF_NATIVE(, mov64, "mov %rdi, %rax");
+#if defined(CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS)&& defined(CONFIG_QUEUE_SPINLOCK)
+DEF_NATIVE(pv_lock_ops, queue_unlock, "movb $0, (%rdi)");
+#endif
+
unsigned paravirt_patch_ident_32(void *insnbuf, unsigned len)
{
return paravirt_patch_insns(insnbuf, len,
@@ -61,6 +65,9 @@ unsigned native_patch(u8 type, u16 clobb
PATCH_SITE(pv_cpu_ops, clts);
PATCH_SITE(pv_mmu_ops, flush_tlb_single);
PATCH_SITE(pv_cpu_ops, wbinvd);
+#if defined(CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS)&& defined(CONFIG_QUEUE_SPINLOCK)
+ PATCH_SITE(pv_lock_ops, queue_unlock);
+#endif
patch_site:
ret = paravirt_patch_insns(ibuf, len, start, end);
That makes sure to overwrite the callee-saved call to the
pv_lock_ops::queue_unlock with the immediate asm "movb $0, (%rdi)".
Therefore you can retain the inlined unlock with hardly (there might be
some NOP padding) any overhead at all. On PV it reverts to a callee
saved function call.
My concern is that spin_unlock() can be called in many places, including
loadable kernel modules. Can the paravirt_patch_ident_32() function able to
patch all of them in reasonable time? How about a kernel module loaded later
at run time?
It has too. When the modules are loaded the .paravirt symbols are exposed
and the module loader patches that.
And during bootup time (before modules are loaded) it also patches everything
- when it only runs on one CPU.
So I think we may still need to disable unlock function inlining even if we
used your way kernel site patching.
No need. Inline should (And is) working just fine.
Regards,
Longman
Thanks for letting me know about the paravirt patching capability
available in the kernel. In this case, I would say we should use Peter's
way of doing unlock without disabling unlock function inlining. That
will further reduce the performance difference of kernels with and
without PV.
Cheer,
Longman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
