Il 28/02/2014 18:06, Waiman Long ha scritto:
On 02/26/2014 12:07 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:14:24AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
Locking is always an issue in a virtualized environment as the virtual
CPU that is waiting on a lock may get scheduled out and hence block
any progress in lock acquisition even when the lock has been freed.
One solution to this problem is to allow unfair lock in a
para-virtualized environment. In this case, a new lock acquirer can
come and steal the lock if the next-in-line CPU to get the lock is
scheduled out. Unfair lock in a native environment is generally not a
Hmm, how do you know if the 'next-in-line CPU' is scheduled out? As
in the hypervisor knows - but you as a guest might have no idea
of it.
I use a heart-beat counter to see if the other side responses within a
certain time limit. If not, I assume it has been scheduled out probably
due to PLE.
PLE is unnecessary if you have "true" pv spinlocks where the
next-in-line schedules itself out with a hypercall (Xen) or hlt
instruction (KVM). Set a bit in the qspinlock before going to sleep,
and the lock owner will know that it needs to kick the next-in-line.
I think there is no need for the unfair lock bits. 1-2% is a pretty
large hit.
Paolo
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
