From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/4] arm64: do not use dummy vcpu_is_preempted()
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:47:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <875yxf356w.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210709043713.887098-4-senozhatsky@chromium.org>
On Fri, 09 Jul 2021 05:37:12 +0100,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> vcpu_is_preempted() now can represent the actual state of
> the VCPU, so the scheduler can make better decisions when
> it picks the idle CPU to enqueue a task on.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h | 18 ++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
> index 0525c0b089ed..1d579497e1b8 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
> @@ -7,21 +7,23 @@
>
> #include <asm/qspinlock.h>
> #include <asm/qrwlock.h>
> +#include <asm/paravirt.h>
>
> /* See include/linux/spinlock.h */
> #define smp_mb__after_spinlock() smp_mb()
>
> -/*
> - * Changing this will break osq_lock() thanks to the call inside
> - * smp_cond_load_relaxed().
> - *
> - * See:
> - * https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200110100612.GC2827@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
> - */
Why are you deleting this? Please explain your reasoning in the commit
message. It seems to me that it still makes complete sense when
CONFIG_PARAVIRT is not defined.
> #define vcpu_is_preempted vcpu_is_preempted
> -static inline bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu)
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
> +static inline bool vcpu_is_preempted(unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> + return paravirt_vcpu_is_preempted(cpu);
> +}
> +#else
> +static inline bool vcpu_is_preempted(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> return false;
> }
> +#endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT */
>
> #endif /* __ASM_SPINLOCK_H */
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/4] arm64: do not use dummy vcpu_is_preempted()
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:47:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <875yxf356w.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210709043713.887098-4-senozhatsky@chromium.org>
On Fri, 09 Jul 2021 05:37:12 +0100,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> vcpu_is_preempted() now can represent the actual state of
> the VCPU, so the scheduler can make better decisions when
> it picks the idle CPU to enqueue a task on.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h | 18 ++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
> index 0525c0b089ed..1d579497e1b8 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
> @@ -7,21 +7,23 @@
>
> #include <asm/qspinlock.h>
> #include <asm/qrwlock.h>
> +#include <asm/paravirt.h>
>
> /* See include/linux/spinlock.h */
> #define smp_mb__after_spinlock() smp_mb()
>
> -/*
> - * Changing this will break osq_lock() thanks to the call inside
> - * smp_cond_load_relaxed().
> - *
> - * See:
> - * https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200110100612.GC2827@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
> - */
Why are you deleting this? Please explain your reasoning in the commit
message. It seems to me that it still makes complete sense when
CONFIG_PARAVIRT is not defined.
> #define vcpu_is_preempted vcpu_is_preempted
> -static inline bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu)
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
> +static inline bool vcpu_is_preempted(unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> + return paravirt_vcpu_is_preempted(cpu);
> +}
> +#else
> +static inline bool vcpu_is_preempted(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> return false;
> }
> +#endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT */
>
> #endif /* __ASM_SPINLOCK_H */
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/4] arm64: do not use dummy vcpu_is_preempted()
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:47:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <875yxf356w.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210709043713.887098-4-senozhatsky@chromium.org>
On Fri, 09 Jul 2021 05:37:12 +0100,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> vcpu_is_preempted() now can represent the actual state of
> the VCPU, so the scheduler can make better decisions when
> it picks the idle CPU to enqueue a task on.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h | 18 ++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
> index 0525c0b089ed..1d579497e1b8 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
> @@ -7,21 +7,23 @@
>
> #include <asm/qspinlock.h>
> #include <asm/qrwlock.h>
> +#include <asm/paravirt.h>
>
> /* See include/linux/spinlock.h */
> #define smp_mb__after_spinlock() smp_mb()
>
> -/*
> - * Changing this will break osq_lock() thanks to the call inside
> - * smp_cond_load_relaxed().
> - *
> - * See:
> - * https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200110100612.GC2827@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
> - */
Why are you deleting this? Please explain your reasoning in the commit
message. It seems to me that it still makes complete sense when
CONFIG_PARAVIRT is not defined.
> #define vcpu_is_preempted vcpu_is_preempted
> -static inline bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu)
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
> +static inline bool vcpu_is_preempted(unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> + return paravirt_vcpu_is_preempted(cpu);
> +}
> +#else
> +static inline bool vcpu_is_preempted(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> return false;
> }
> +#endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT */
>
> #endif /* __ASM_SPINLOCK_H */
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-12 15:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 75+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-09 4:37 [PATCHv2 0/4] arm64:kvm: teach guest sched that VCPUs can be preempted Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 4:37 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 4:37 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 4:37 ` [PATCHv2 1/4] arm64: smccc: Add SMCCC pv-vcpu-state function call IDs Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 4:37 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 4:37 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-12 14:22 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-12 14:22 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-12 14:22 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-09 4:37 ` [PATCHv2 2/4] arm64: add guest pvstate support Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 4:37 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 4:37 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 7:39 ` David Edmondson
2021-07-09 7:39 ` David Edmondson
2021-07-09 7:39 ` David Edmondson
2021-07-09 7:52 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 7:52 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 7:52 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 18:58 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-07-09 18:58 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-07-09 18:58 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-07-09 21:53 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 21:53 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 21:53 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-11 16:58 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-07-11 16:58 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-07-11 16:58 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-07-12 15:42 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-12 15:42 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-12 15:42 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 2:05 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 2:05 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 2:05 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 8:22 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 8:22 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 8:22 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 8:47 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 8:47 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 8:47 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 10:16 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 10:16 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 10:16 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-09 4:37 ` [PATCHv2 3/4] arm64: do not use dummy vcpu_is_preempted() Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 4:37 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 4:37 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-12 15:47 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2021-07-12 15:47 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-12 15:47 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 2:06 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 2:06 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 2:06 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 4:37 ` [PATCHv2 4/4] arm64: add host pv-vcpu-state support Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 4:37 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-09 4:37 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-12 16:24 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-12 16:24 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-12 16:24 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-20 18:44 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-07-20 18:44 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-07-20 18:44 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-07-21 8:40 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 8:40 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 8:40 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 10:38 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 10:38 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 10:38 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 11:08 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 11:08 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 11:08 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 1:15 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 1:15 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 1:15 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2021-07-21 9:10 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 9:10 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-21 9:10 ` Marc Zyngier
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=875yxf356w.wl-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=joelaf@google.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=senozhatsky@chromium.org \
--cc=suleiman@google.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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.