On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 01:43:17PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:39:21PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 03:00:30 pm Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Anthony Liguori <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Shouldn't it be possible to just drop the lock before invoking > > > > virtqueue_kick() and reacquire it afterwards? There's nothing in that > > > > virtqueue_kick() path that the lock is protecting AFAICT. > > > > > > No, that would lead to a race condition because vq->num_added is > > > modified by both virtqueue_add_buf_gfp() and virtqueue_kick(). > > > Without a lock held during virtqueue_kick() another vcpu could add > > > bufs while vq->num_added is used and cleared by virtqueue_kick(): > > > > Right, this dovetails with another proposed change (was it Michael?) > > where we would update the avail idx inside add_buf, rather than waiting > > until kick. This means a barrier inside add_buf, but that's probably > > fine. > > > > If we do that, then we don't need a lock on virtqueue_kick. > > > > Michael, thoughts? > > Maybe not even that: I think we could just do virtio_wmb() > in add, and keep the mb() in kick. > > What I'm a bit worried about is contention on the cacheline > including index and flags: the more we write to that line, > the worse it gets. > > So need to test performance impact of this change: > I didn't find time to do this yet, as I am trying > to finalize the used index publishing patches. > Any takers? > > Do we see performance improvement after making kick lockless? There was no guest CPU reduction or I/O throughput increase with my patch when running 4 dd iflag=direct bs=4k if=/dev/vdb of=/dev/null processes. However, the lock_stat numbers above show clear improvement of the lock hold/wait times. I was hoping to see guest CPU utilization go down and I/O throughput go up, so there is still investigation to do with my patch in isolation. Although I'd like to try it later, putting my patch on top of your avail idx work is too early because it will be harder to reason about the performance with both patches present at the same time. Stefan _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
