On 05/09/17 16:10, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 09/05/2017 09:24 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> There are cases where a guest tries to switch spinlocks to bare metal
>> behavior (e.g. by setting "xen_nopvspin" boot parameter). Today this
>> has the downside of falling back to unfair test and set scheme for
>> qspinlocks due to virt_spin_lock() detecting the virtualized
>> environment.
>>
>> Make virt_spin_lock() a paravirt operation in order to enable users
>> to select an explicit behavior like bare metal.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h | 5 ++++
>> arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h | 1 +
>> arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>> arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c | 14 ++++++++++
>> arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 2 ++
>> 5 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
>> index c25dd22f7c70..d9e954fb37df 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
>> @@ -725,6 +725,11 @@ static __always_inline bool pv_vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu)
>> return PVOP_CALLEE1(bool, pv_lock_ops.vcpu_is_preempted, cpu);
>> }
>>
>> +static __always_inline bool pv_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>> +{
>> + return PVOP_CALLEE1(bool, pv_lock_ops.virt_spin_lock, lock);
>> +}
>> +
>> #endif /* SMP && PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS */
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
>> index 19efefc0e27e..928f5e7953a7 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
>> @@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ struct pv_lock_ops {
>> void (*kick)(int cpu);
>>
>> struct paravirt_callee_save vcpu_is_preempted;
>> + struct paravirt_callee_save virt_spin_lock;
>> } __no_randomize_layout;
>>
>> /* This contains all the paravirt structures: we get a convenient
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>> index 48a706f641f2..fbd98896385c 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>> @@ -17,6 +17,25 @@ static inline void native_queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>> smp_store_release((u8 *)lock, 0);
>> }
>>
>> +static inline bool native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>> +{
>> + if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
>> + return false;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * On hypervisors without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS support we fall
>> + * back to a Test-and-Set spinlock, because fair locks have
>> + * horrible lock 'holder' preemption issues.
>> + */
>> +
>> + do {
>> + while (atomic_read(&lock->val) != 0)
>> + cpu_relax();
>> + } while (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0);
>> +
>> + return true;
>> +}
>> +
>> #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
>> extern void native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val);
>> extern void __pv_init_lock_hash(void);
>> @@ -38,33 +57,32 @@ static inline bool vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu)
>> {
>> return pv_vcpu_is_preempted(cpu);
>> }
>> +
>> +void native_pv_lock_init(void) __init;
>> #else
>> static inline void queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>> {
>> native_queued_spin_unlock(lock);
>> }
>> +
>> +static inline void native_pv_lock_init(void)
>> +{
>> +}
>> #endif
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
>> #define virt_spin_lock virt_spin_lock
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
>> static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>> {
>> - if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
>> - return false;
>
> Have you consider just add one more jump label here to skip
> virt_spin_lock when KVM or Xen want to do so?
Why? Did you look at patch 4? This is the way to do it...
>
>> -
>> - /*
>> - * On hypervisors without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS support we fall
>> - * back to a Test-and-Set spinlock, because fair locks have
>> - * horrible lock 'holder' preemption issues.
>> - */
>> -
>> - do {
>> - while (atomic_read(&lock->val) != 0)
>> - cpu_relax();
>> - } while (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0);
>> -
>> - return true;
>> + return pv_virt_spin_lock(lock);
>> +}
>> +#else
>> +static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>> +{
>> + return native_virt_spin_lock(lock);
>> }
>> +#endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS */
>> #endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT */
>>
>> #include <asm-generic/qspinlock.h>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c
>> index 26e4bd92f309..1be187ef8a38 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c
>> @@ -20,6 +20,12 @@ bool pv_is_native_spin_unlock(void)
>> __raw_callee_save___native_queued_spin_unlock;
>> }
>>
>> +__visible bool __native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>> +{
>> + return native_virt_spin_lock(lock);
>> +}
>> +PV_CALLEE_SAVE_REGS_THUNK(__native_virt_spin_lock);
>
> I have some concern about the overhead of register saving/restoring have
> on spin lock performance in case the kernel is under a non-KVM/Xen
> hypervisor.
We are on the slow path already.
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
