On 11/01/2017 12:28 PM, Waiman Long wrote: > On 11/01/2017 11:51 AM, Juergen Gross wrote: >> On 01/11/17 16:32, Waiman Long wrote: >>> Currently, there are 3 different lock types that can be chosen for >>> the x86 architecture: >>> >>> - qspinlock >>> - pvqspinlock >>> - unfair lock >>> >>> One of the above lock types will be chosen at boot time depending on >>> a number of different factors. >>> >>> Ideally, the hypervisors should be able to pick the best performing >>> lock type for the current VM configuration. That is not currently >>> the case as the performance of each lock type are affected by many >>> different factors like the number of vCPUs in the VM, the amount vCPU >>> overcommitment, the CPU type and so on. >>> >>> Generally speaking, unfair lock performs well for VMs with a small >>> number of vCPUs. Native qspinlock may perform better than pvqspinlock >>> if there is vCPU pinning and there is no vCPU over-commitment. >>> >>> This patch adds a new kernel parameter to allow administrator to >>> choose the paravirt spinlock type to be used. VM administrators can >>> experiment with the different lock types and choose one that can best >>> suit their need, if they want to. Hypervisor developers can also use >>> that to experiment with different lock types so that they can come >>> up with a better algorithm to pick the best lock type. >>> >>> The hypervisor paravirt spinlock code will override this new parameter >>> in determining if pvqspinlock should be used. The parameter, however, >>> will override Xen's xen_nopvspin in term of disabling unfair lock. >> Hmm, I'm not sure we need pvlock_type _and_ xen_nopvspin. What do others >> think? > I don't think we need xen_nopvspin, but I don't want to remove that > without agreement from the community. I also don't think xen_nopvspin will be needed after pvlock_type is introduced. -boris