On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 05:30:20PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 07/24/2013 04:09 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 03:15:50PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> >>On 07/23/2013 08:37 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:50:16AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> >>>>+static void kvm_lock_spinning(struct arch_spinlock *lock, __ticket_t want)
> >>[...]
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ /*
> >>>>+ * halt until it's our turn and kicked. Note that we do safe halt
> >>>>+ * for irq enabled case to avoid hang when lock info is overwritten
> >>>>+ * in irq spinlock slowpath and no spurious interrupt occur to save us.
> >>>>+ */
> >>>>+ if (arch_irqs_disabled_flags(flags))
> >>>>+ halt();
> >>>>+ else
> >>>>+ safe_halt();
> >>>>+
> >>>>+out:
> >>>So here now interrupts can be either disabled or enabled. Previous
> >>>version disabled interrupts here, so are we sure it is safe to have them
> >>>enabled at this point? I do not see any problem yet, will keep thinking.
> >>
> >>If we enable interrupt here, then
> >>
> >>
> >>>>+ cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &waiting_cpus);
> >>
> >>and if we start serving lock for an interrupt that came here,
> >>cpumask clear and w->lock=null may not happen atomically.
> >>if irq spinlock does not take slow path we would have non null value
> >>for lock, but with no information in waitingcpu.
> >>
> >>I am still thinking what would be problem with that.
> >>
> >Exactly, for kicker waiting_cpus and w->lock updates are
> >non atomic anyway.
> >
> >>>>+ w->lock = NULL;
> >>>>+ local_irq_restore(flags);
> >>>>+ spin_time_accum_blocked(start);
> >>>>+}
> >>>>+PV_CALLEE_SAVE_REGS_THUNK(kvm_lock_spinning);
> >>>>+
> >>>>+/* Kick vcpu waiting on @lock->head to reach value @ticket */
> >>>>+static void kvm_unlock_kick(struct arch_spinlock *lock, __ticket_t ticket)
> >>>>+{
> >>>>+ int cpu;
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ add_stats(RELEASED_SLOW, 1);
> >>>>+ for_each_cpu(cpu, &waiting_cpus) {
> >>>>+ const struct kvm_lock_waiting *w = &per_cpu(lock_waiting, cpu);
> >>>>+ if (ACCESS_ONCE(w->lock) == lock &&
> >>>>+ ACCESS_ONCE(w->want) == ticket) {
> >>>>+ add_stats(RELEASED_SLOW_KICKED, 1);
> >>>>+ kvm_kick_cpu(cpu);
> >>>What about using NMI to wake sleepers? I think it was discussed, but
> >>>forgot why it was dismissed.
> >>
> >>I think I have missed that discussion. 'll go back and check. so
> >>what is the idea here? we can easily wake up the halted vcpus that
> >>have interrupt disabled?
> >We can of course. IIRC the objection was that NMI handling path is very
> >fragile and handling NMI on each wakeup will be more expensive then
> >waking up a guest without injecting an event, but it is still interesting
> >to see the numbers.
> >
>
> Haam, now I remember, We had tried request based mechanism. (new
> request like REQ_UNHALT) and process that. It had worked, but had some
> complex hacks in vcpu_enter_guest to avoid guest hang in case of
> request cleared. So had left it there..
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/4/30/67
>
> But I do not remember performance impact though.
No, this is something different. Wakeup with NMI does not need KVM changes at
all. Instead of kvm_kick_cpu(cpu) in kvm_unlock_kick you send NMI IPI.
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
