kvm.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com,
	mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, mtosatti@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] use unfair spinlock when running on hypervisor.
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 17:34:50 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100603120450.GH4035@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100603103855.GG6822@laptop>

On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 08:38:55PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Guest side:
> > 
> > static inline void spin_lock(spinlock_t *lock)
> > {
> > 	raw_spin_lock(&lock->rlock);
> > +       __get_cpu_var(gh_vcpu_ptr)->defer_preempt++;
> > }
> > 
> > static inline void spin_unlock(spinlock_t *lock)
> > {
> > +	__get_cpu_var(gh_vcpu_ptr)->defer_preempt--;
> >         raw_spin_unlock(&lock->rlock);
> > }
> > 
> > [similar changes to other spinlock variants]
> 
> Great, this is a nice way to improve it.
> 
> You might want to consider playing with first taking a ticket, and
> then if we fail to acquire the lock immediately, then increment
> defer_preempt before we start spinning.
>
> The downside of this would be if we waste all our slice on spinning
> and then preempted in the critical section. But with ticket locks
> you can easily see how many entries in the queue in front of you.
> So you could experiment with starting to defer preempt when we
> notice we are getting toward the head of the queue.

Mm - my goal is to avoid long spin times in the first place (because the 
owning vcpu was descheduled at an unfortunate time i.e while it was holding a
lock). From that sense, I am targetting preemption-defer of lock *holder*
rather than of lock acquirer. So ideally whenever somebody tries to grab a lock,
it should be free most of the time, it can be held only if the owner is
currently running - which means we won't have to spin too long for the lock.

> Have you also looked at how s390 checks if the owning vcpu is running
> and if so it spins, if not yields to the hypervisor. Something like
> turning it into an adaptive lock. This could be applicable as well.

I don't think even s390 does adaptive spinlocks. Also afaik s390 zVM does gang
scheduling of vcpus, which reduces the severity of this problem very much -
essentially lock acquirer/holder are run simultaneously on different cpus all
the time. Gang scheduling is on my list of things to look at much later
(although I have been warned that its a scalablility nightmare!).

- vatsa

  reply	other threads:[~2010-06-03 12:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-06-01  9:35 [PATCH] use unfair spinlock when running on hypervisor Gleb Natapov
2010-06-01 15:53 ` Andi Kleen
2010-06-01 16:24   ` Gleb Natapov
2010-06-01 16:38     ` Andi Kleen
2010-06-01 16:52       ` Avi Kivity
2010-06-01 17:27         ` Andi Kleen
2010-06-02  2:51           ` Avi Kivity
2010-06-02  5:26             ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-06-02  8:50             ` Andi Kleen
2010-06-02  9:00               ` Avi Kivity
2010-06-03  4:20                 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-06-03  4:51                   ` Eric Dumazet
2010-06-03  5:38                     ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-06-03  8:52                   ` Andi Kleen
2010-06-03  9:26                     ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-06-03 10:22                     ` Nick Piggin
2010-06-03 10:38                   ` Nick Piggin
2010-06-03 12:04                     ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri [this message]
2010-06-03 12:38                       ` Nick Piggin
2010-06-03 12:58                         ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-06-03 13:04                           ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-06-03 13:45                           ` Nick Piggin
2010-06-03 14:48                             ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-06-03 15:17                         ` Andi Kleen
2010-06-03 15:35                           ` Nick Piggin
2010-06-03 17:25                             ` Andi Kleen
2010-06-01 17:39         ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2010-06-02  2:46           ` Avi Kivity
2010-06-02  7:39           ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-06-01 17:54         ` john cooper
2010-06-01 19:36           ` Andi Kleen
2010-06-03 11:06             ` David Woodhouse
2010-06-03 15:15               ` Andi Kleen
2010-06-01 21:39         ` Eric Dumazet

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=20100603120450.GH4035@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=vatsa@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=avi@redhat.com \
    --cc=gleb@redhat.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
    --cc=npiggin@suse.de \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).