Re: [PATCH v12 09/11] pvqspinlock, x86: Add para-virtualization support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 10/24/2014 04:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 02:10:38PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
+static inline void pv_init_node(struct mcs_spinlock *node)
+{
+	struct pv_qnode *pn = (struct pv_qnode *)node;
+
+	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct pv_qnode)>  5*sizeof(struct mcs_spinlock));
+
+	if (!pv_enabled())
+		return;
+
+	pn->cpustate = PV_CPU_ACTIVE;
+	pn->mayhalt  = false;
+	pn->mycpu    = smp_processor_id();
+	pn->head     = PV_INVALID_HEAD;
+}

@@ -333,6 +393,7 @@ queue:
  	node += idx;
  	node->locked = 0;
  	node->next = NULL;
+	pv_init_node(node);

  	/*
  	 * We touched a (possibly) cold cacheline in the per-cpu queue node;

So even if !pv_enabled() the compiler will still have to emit the code
for that inline, which will generate additional register pressure,
icache pressure and lovely stuff like that.

The patch I had used pv-ops for these things that would turn into NOPs
in the regular case and callee-saved function calls for the PV case.

That still does not entirely eliminate cost, but does reduce it
significant. Please consider using that.

The additional register pressure may just cause a few more register moves which should be negligible in the overall performance . The additional icache pressure, however, may have some impact on performance. I was trying to balance the performance of the pv and non-pv versions so that we won't penalize the pv code too much for a bit more performance in the non-pv code. Doing it your way will add a lot of function call and register saving/restoring to the pv code.

Another alternative that I can think of is to generate 2 versions of the slowpath code - one pv and one non-pv out of the same source code. The non-pv code will call into the pv code once if pv is enabled. In this way, it won't increase the icache and register pressure of the non-pv code. However, this may make the source code a bit harder to read.

Please let me know your thought on this alternate approach.

-Longman


_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization




[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux