On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 01:34, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 19/10/21 10:12, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > > - if (kvm_vcpu_wake_up(vcpu))
> > > - return;
> > > + me = get_cpu();
> > > +
> > > + if (rcuwait_active(kvm_arch_vcpu_get_wait(vcpu)) && kvm_vcpu_wake_up(vcpu))
> > > + goto out;
> >
> > This is racy. You are basically doing the same check that rcuwait_wake_up
> > does, but without the memory barrier before.
>
> I was worried that was the case[*], but I didn't have the two hours it would have
> taken me to verify there was indeed a problem :-)
>
> The intent of the extra check was to avoid the locked instruction that comes with
> disabling preemption via rcu_read_lock(). But thinking more, the extra op should
> be little more than a basic arithmetic operation in the grand scheme on modern x86
> since the cache line is going to be locked and written no matter what, either
> immediately before or immediately after.
I observe the main overhead of rcuwait_wake_up() is from rcu
operations, especially rcu_read_lock/unlock().
>
> So with Paolo's other comment, maybe just this? And if this doesn't provide the
> desired performance boost, changes to the rcuwait behavior should go in separate
> patch.
Ok.
Wanpeng
