public inbox for kvm@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] x86: kvm: Convert i8254/i8259 locks to raw_spinlocks
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:18:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B7D13F1.3030702@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B7D10D2.20105@siemens.com>

On 02/18/2010 12:05 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>    
>> On 02/18/2010 11:45 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>      
>>> On 02/18/2010 11:40 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>        
>>>>> Meanwhile, if anyone has any idea how to kill this lock, I'd love to
>>>>> see it.
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>> What concurrency does it resolve in the end? On first glance, it only
>>>> synchronize the fiddling with pre-VCPU request bits, right? What forces
>>>> us to do this? Wouldn't it suffice to disable preemption (thus
>>>> migration) and the let concurrent requests race for setting the bits? I
>>>> mean if some request bit was already set on entry, we don't include the
>>>>    related VCPU in smp_call_function_many anyway.
>>>>          
>>> It's more difficult.
>>>
>>> vcpu 0: sets request bit on vcpu 2
>>>            vcpu 1: test_and_set request bit on vcpu 2, returns already set
>>>            vcpu 1: returns
>>> vcpu 0: sends IPI
>>> vcpu 0: returns
>>>
>>> so vcpu 1 returns before the IPI was performed.  If the request was a
>>> tlb flush, for example, vcpu 1 may free a page that is still in vcpu
>>> 2's tlb.
>>>        
>> One way out would be to have a KVM_REQ_IN_PROGRESS, set it in
>> make_request, clear it in the IPI function.
>>
>> If a second make_request sees it already set, it can simply busy wait
>> until it is cleared, without sending the IPI.  Of course the busy wait
>> means we can't enable preemption (or we may busy wait on an unscheduled
>> task), but at least the requests can proceed in parallel instead of
>> serializing.
>>      
> ...or include VCPUs with KVM_REQ_IN_PROGRESS set into the IPI set even
> if they already have the desired request bit set.

But then we're making them take the IPI, which is pointless and 
expensive.  My approach piggy backs multiple requesters on one IPI.

> Then we should
> serialize in smp_call_function_many.
>    

Do you mean rely on s_c_f_m's internal synchronization?

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function


  reply	other threads:[~2010-02-18 10:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-02-17 14:00 [patch] x86: kvm: Convert i8254/i8259 locks to raw_spinlocks Thomas Gleixner
2010-02-18  9:12 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-18  9:20   ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-18  9:40     ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-18  9:45       ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-18  9:49         ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-18  9:53           ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-18  9:50         ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-18 10:05           ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-18 10:18             ` Avi Kivity [this message]
2010-02-19  1:14               ` Marcelo Tosatti
2010-02-18  9:19 ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-23 19:18 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-23 22:23   ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-02-24  9:41     ` [PATCH] KVM: x86: Kick VCPU outside PIC lock again Jan Kiszka
2010-02-24  9:48       ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-24  9:54         ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-24 10:04           ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-24 10:13             ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-24 10:17               ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-24 10:22                 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-24 10:27                   ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-24 10:31                     ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-24 10:28                   ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-24 10:41                     ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-24 11:42                       ` Jan Kiszka

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=4B7D13F1.3030702@redhat.com \
    --to=avi@redhat.com \
    --cc=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --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