On Thu, 03 May 2012 15:47:26 +0300
Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 05/03/2012 03:29 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 21:22 +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> > > Although the real use case is out of this RFC patch, we are now discussing
> > > a case in which we may hold a spin_lock for long time, ms order, depending
> > > on workload; and in that case, other threads -- VCPU threads -- should be
> > > given higher priority for that problematic lock.
> >
> > Firstly, if you can hold a lock that long, it shouldn't be a spinlock,
>
> In fact with your mm preemptibility work it can be made into a mutex, if
> the entire mmu notifier path can be done in task context. However it
> ends up a strange mutex - you can sleep while holding it but you may not
> allocate, because you might recurse into an mmu notifier again.
>
> Most uses of the lock only involve tweaking some bits though.
I might find a real way to go.
After your "mmu_lock -- TLB-flush" decoupling, we can change the current
get_dirty work flow like this:
for ... {
take mmu_lock
for 4K*8 gfns { // with 4KB dirty_bitmap_buffer
xchg dirty bits // 64/32 gfns at once
write protect them
}
release mmu_lock
copy_to_user
}
TLB flush
This reduces the size of dirty_bitmap_buffer and does not hold mmu_lock
so long.
I should have think of a way not to hold the spin_lock so long as Peter
said. My lack of thinking might be the real problem.
Thanks,
Takuya
--
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
