On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 08:47:23AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 15:07 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:48:44PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:39:10PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:22:19PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > So as was discussed kvm_set_irq under spinlock is bad for scalability
> > > > > > > > > > > with multiple VCPUs. Why do we need a spinlock simply to protect
> > > > > > > > > > > level_asserted? Let's use an atomic test and set/test and clear and the
> > > > > > > > > > > problem goes away.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That sad reality is that for level interrupt we already scan all vcpus
> > > > > > > > > > under spinlock.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Where?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ioapic
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > $ grep kvm_for_each_vcpu virt/kvm/ioapic.c
> > > > > > > $
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Come on Michael. You can do better than grep and actually look at what
> > > > > > code does. The code that loops over all vcpus while delivering an irq is
> > > > > > in kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic(). Now grep for that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm, I see, it's actually done for edge if injected from ioapic too,
> > > > > right?
> > > > >
> > > > > So set_irq does a linear scan, and for each matching CPU it calls
> > > > > kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic which is another scan?
> > > > > So it's actually N^2 worst case for a broadcast?
> > > >
> > > > No it isn't, I misread the code.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, maybe not trivially but this looks fixable to me: we could drop
> > > > the ioapic lock before calling kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic.
> > > >
> > > May be, may be not. Just saying "lets drop lock whenever we don't feel
> > > like holding one" does not cut it.
> >
> > One thing we do is set remote_irr if interrupt was injected.
> > I agree these things are tricky.
> >
> > One other question:
> >
> > static int ioapic_service(struct kvm_ioapic *ioapic, unsigned int idx)
> > {
> > union kvm_ioapic_redirect_entry *pent;
> > int injected = -1;
> >
> > pent = &ioapic->redirtbl[idx];
> >
> > if (!pent->fields.mask) {
> > injected = ioapic_deliver(ioapic, idx);
> > if (injected && pent->fields.trig_mode == IOAPIC_LEVEL_TRIG)
> > pent->fields.remote_irr = 1;
> > }
> >
> > return injected;
> > }
> >
> >
> > This if (injected) looks a bit strange since ioapic_deliver returns
> > -1 if no matching destinations. Should be if (injected > 0)?
> >
> >
> >
> > > Back to original point though current
> > > situation is that calling kvm_set_irq() under spinlock is not worse for
> > > scalability than calling it not under one.
> >
> > Yes. Still the specific use can just use an atomic flag,
> > lock+bool is not needed, and we won't need to undo it later.
>
>
> Actually, no, replacing it with an atomic is racy.
>
> CPU0 (inject) CPU1 (EOI)
> atomic_cmpxchg(&asserted, 0, 1)
> atomic_cmpxchg(&asserted, 1, 0)
> kvm_set_irq(0)
> kvm_set_irq(1)
> eventfd_signal
>
> The interrupt is now stuck on until another interrupt is injected.
>
Well EOI somehow happened here before interrupt so it's a bug somewhere
else?
--
MST
--
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
