From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Attilio Rao <attilio.rao@citrix.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Xen Devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
Stephan Diestelhorst <stephan.diestelhorst@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V6 0/11] Paravirtualized ticketlocks
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:25:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F707C5F.1000905@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120321102041.473.61069.sendpatchset@codeblue.in.ibm.com>
On 03/21/2012 12:20 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com>
>
> Changes since last posting: (Raghavendra K T)
> [
> - Rebased to linux-3.3-rc6.
> - used function+enum in place of macro (better type checking)
> - use cmpxchg while resetting zero status for possible race
> [suggested by Dave Hansen for KVM patches ]
> ]
>
> This series replaces the existing paravirtualized spinlock mechanism
> with a paravirtualized ticketlock mechanism.
>
> Ticket locks have an inherent problem in a virtualized case, because
> the vCPUs are scheduled rather than running concurrently (ignoring
> gang scheduled vCPUs). This can result in catastrophic performance
> collapses when the vCPU scheduler doesn't schedule the correct "next"
> vCPU, and ends up scheduling a vCPU which burns its entire timeslice
> spinning. (Note that this is not the same problem as lock-holder
> preemption, which this series also addresses; that's also a problem,
> but not catastrophic).
>
> (See Thomas Friebel's talk "Prevent Guests from Spinning Around"
> http://www.xen.org/files/xensummitboston08/LHP.pdf for more details.)
>
> Currently we deal with this by having PV spinlocks, which adds a layer
> of indirection in front of all the spinlock functions, and defining a
> completely new implementation for Xen (and for other pvops users, but
> there are none at present).
>
> PV ticketlocks keeps the existing ticketlock implemenentation
> (fastpath) as-is, but adds a couple of pvops for the slow paths:
>
> - If a CPU has been waiting for a spinlock for SPIN_THRESHOLD
> iterations, then call out to the __ticket_lock_spinning() pvop,
> which allows a backend to block the vCPU rather than spinning. This
> pvop can set the lock into "slowpath state".
>
> - When releasing a lock, if it is in "slowpath state", the call
> __ticket_unlock_kick() to kick the next vCPU in line awake. If the
> lock is no longer in contention, it also clears the slowpath flag.
>
> The "slowpath state" is stored in the LSB of the within the lock tail
> ticket. This has the effect of reducing the max number of CPUs by
> half (so, a "small ticket" can deal with 128 CPUs, and "large ticket"
> 32768).
>
> This series provides a Xen implementation, but it should be
> straightforward to add a KVM implementation as well.
>
Looks like a good baseline on which to build the KVM implementation. We
might need some handshake to prevent interference on the host side with
the PLE code.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Xen Devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
Virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com>,
Stephan Diestelhorst <stephan.diestelhorst@amd.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>,
Attilio Rao <attilio.rao@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V6 0/11] Paravirtualized ticketlocks
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:25:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F707C5F.1000905@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120321102041.473.61069.sendpatchset@codeblue.in.ibm.com>
On 03/21/2012 12:20 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com>
>
> Changes since last posting: (Raghavendra K T)
> [
> - Rebased to linux-3.3-rc6.
> - used function+enum in place of macro (better type checking)
> - use cmpxchg while resetting zero status for possible race
> [suggested by Dave Hansen for KVM patches ]
> ]
>
> This series replaces the existing paravirtualized spinlock mechanism
> with a paravirtualized ticketlock mechanism.
>
> Ticket locks have an inherent problem in a virtualized case, because
> the vCPUs are scheduled rather than running concurrently (ignoring
> gang scheduled vCPUs). This can result in catastrophic performance
> collapses when the vCPU scheduler doesn't schedule the correct "next"
> vCPU, and ends up scheduling a vCPU which burns its entire timeslice
> spinning. (Note that this is not the same problem as lock-holder
> preemption, which this series also addresses; that's also a problem,
> but not catastrophic).
>
> (See Thomas Friebel's talk "Prevent Guests from Spinning Around"
> http://www.xen.org/files/xensummitboston08/LHP.pdf for more details.)
>
> Currently we deal with this by having PV spinlocks, which adds a layer
> of indirection in front of all the spinlock functions, and defining a
> completely new implementation for Xen (and for other pvops users, but
> there are none at present).
>
> PV ticketlocks keeps the existing ticketlock implemenentation
> (fastpath) as-is, but adds a couple of pvops for the slow paths:
>
> - If a CPU has been waiting for a spinlock for SPIN_THRESHOLD
> iterations, then call out to the __ticket_lock_spinning() pvop,
> which allows a backend to block the vCPU rather than spinning. This
> pvop can set the lock into "slowpath state".
>
> - When releasing a lock, if it is in "slowpath state", the call
> __ticket_unlock_kick() to kick the next vCPU in line awake. If the
> lock is no longer in contention, it also clears the slowpath flag.
>
> The "slowpath state" is stored in the LSB of the within the lock tail
> ticket. This has the effect of reducing the max number of CPUs by
> half (so, a "small ticket" can deal with 128 CPUs, and "large ticket"
> 32768).
>
> This series provides a Xen implementation, but it should be
> straightforward to add a KVM implementation as well.
>
Looks like a good baseline on which to build the KVM implementation. We
might need some handshake to prevent interference on the host side with
the PLE code.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-26 14:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 113+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-21 10:20 [PATCH RFC V6 0/11] Paravirtualized ticketlocks Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 10:20 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 10:20 ` [PATCH RFC V6 1/11] x86/spinlock: replace pv spinlocks with pv ticketlocks Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 10:20 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 13:04 ` Attilio Rao
2012-03-21 13:04 ` Attilio Rao
2012-03-21 13:22 ` Stephan Diestelhorst
2012-03-21 13:22 ` Stephan Diestelhorst
2012-03-21 13:49 ` Attilio Rao
2012-03-21 13:49 ` Attilio Rao
2012-03-21 14:25 ` Stephan Diestelhorst
2012-03-21 14:33 ` Attilio Rao
2012-03-21 14:33 ` Attilio Rao
2012-03-21 14:49 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 14:49 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 14:25 ` Stephan Diestelhorst
2012-03-21 10:21 ` [PATCH RFC V6 2/11] x86/ticketlock: don't inline _spin_unlock when using paravirt spinlocks Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 17:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-03-21 17:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-03-22 10:06 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-22 10:06 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-22 10:06 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 10:21 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 10:21 ` [PATCH RFC V6 3/11] x86/ticketlock: collapse a layer of functions Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 10:21 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 10:21 ` [PATCH RFC V6 4/11] xen: defer spinlock setup until boot CPU setup Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 10:21 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 10:21 ` [PATCH RFC V6 5/11] xen/pvticketlock: Xen implementation for PV ticket locks Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 10:21 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 10:21 ` [PATCH RFC V6 6/11] xen/pvticketlocks: add xen_nopvspin parameter to disable xen pv ticketlocks Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 10:21 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 10:21 ` [PATCH RFC V6 7/11] x86/pvticketlock: use callee-save for lock_spinning Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 10:21 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 10:22 ` [PATCH RFC V6 8/11] x86/pvticketlock: when paravirtualizing ticket locks, increment by 2 Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 10:22 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 10:22 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 10:22 ` [PATCH RFC V6 9/11] x86/ticketlock: add slowpath logic Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 10:22 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 10:22 ` [PATCH RFC V6 10/11] xen/pvticketlock: allow interrupts to be enabled while blocking Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 10:22 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 10:22 ` [PATCH RFC V6 11/11] xen: enable PV ticketlocks on HVM Xen Raghavendra K T
2012-03-21 10:22 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-26 14:25 ` Avi Kivity [this message]
2012-03-26 14:25 ` [PATCH RFC V6 0/11] Paravirtualized ticketlocks Avi Kivity
2012-03-27 7:37 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-27 7:37 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-28 16:09 ` Alan Meadows
2012-03-28 18:21 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-28 18:21 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-29 9:58 ` Avi Kivity
2012-03-29 9:58 ` Avi Kivity
2012-03-29 18:03 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-29 18:03 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-30 10:07 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-30 10:07 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-04-01 13:18 ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-01 13:18 ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-01 13:48 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-04-01 13:48 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-04-01 13:53 ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-01 13:53 ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-01 13:56 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-04-01 13:56 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-04-02 9:51 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-04-02 9:51 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-04-02 9:51 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-04-02 12:15 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-04-02 12:15 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-04-05 9:01 ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-05 9:01 ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-05 10:40 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-04-05 10:40 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-04-05 8:43 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-04-05 8:43 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-28 16:37 ` Alan Meadows
2012-03-30 20:26 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-03-30 20:26 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-03-30 22:07 ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-03-30 22:07 ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-03-30 22:18 ` Andi Kleen
2012-03-30 22:18 ` Andi Kleen
2012-03-30 23:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-03-30 23:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-03-31 0:08 ` Andi Kleen
2012-03-31 0:08 ` Andi Kleen
2012-03-31 8:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-03-31 8:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-03-31 4:07 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2012-03-31 4:07 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2012-03-31 4:09 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2012-03-31 4:09 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2012-04-16 15:44 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-04-16 15:44 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-04-16 16:36 ` [Xen-devel] " Ian Campbell
2012-04-16 16:36 ` Ian Campbell
2012-04-16 16:42 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2012-04-16 16:42 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2012-04-17 2:54 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2012-04-17 2:54 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2012-04-01 13:31 ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-01 13:31 ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-02 9:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-04-02 9:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-04-05 9:15 ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-05 9:15 ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-02 4:36 ` [Xen-devel] " Juergen Gross
2012-04-02 4:36 ` Juergen Gross
2012-04-02 9:42 ` Ian Campbell
2012-04-02 9:42 ` Ian Campbell
2012-04-11 1:29 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2012-04-11 1:29 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2012-03-31 0:51 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-03-31 0:51 ` Raghavendra K T
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4F707C5F.1000905@redhat.com \
--to=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=attilio.rao@citrix.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=stephan.diestelhorst@amd.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.