From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Jiannan Ouyang <ouyang@cs.pitt.edu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Avi Kivity <avi.kivity@gmail.com>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
Srikar <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@hp.com>,
"Andrew M. Theurer" <habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>, Karen Noel <knoel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Preemptable Ticket Spinlock
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:12:55 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5175E71F.8070307@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1366660147.6454.6.camel@laptop>
On 04/23/2013 01:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 08:52 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> On 04/22/2013 07:51 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2013-04-21 at 17:12 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If we always incremented the ticket number by 2 (instead of 1), then
>>>> we could use the lower bit of the ticket number as the spinlock.
>>>
>>> ISTR that paravirt ticket locks already do that and use the lsb to
>>> indicate the unlock needs to perform wakeups.
>>>
>>> Also, since all of this is virt nonsense, shouldn't it live in the
>>> paravirt ticket lock code and leave the native code as is?
>>
>> Sure, but that is still no reason not to have the virt
>> implementation be as fast as possible, and share the same
>> data type as the non-virt implementation.
>
> It has to share the same data-type..
>
>> Also, is it guaranteed that the native spin_lock code has
>> not been called yet before we switch over to the paravirt
>> functions?
>>
>> If the native spin_lock code has been called already at
>> that time, the native code would still need to be modified
>> to increment the ticket number by 2, so we end up with a
>> compatible value in each spin lock's .tickets field, and
>> prevent a deadlock after we switch over to the paravirt
>> variant.
>
> I thought the stuff already made it upstream, but apparently not; the
> lastest posting I'm aware of is here:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/2/105
>
> That stuff changes the normal ticket increment as well..
>
pv-ticket spinlock went on hold state, after Avi acked because of:
though on non-PLE, we get a huge advantage, on PLE machine the benefit
was not as impressive (~10% as you stated in email chain) compared to
the complexity of the patches.
So Avi suggested to try PLE improvements first, so they are going upstream.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/18/247
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/22/104
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/6/345 (on the way in kvm tree)
Current status of PV spinlock:
I have the rebased patches of pv spinlocks and experimenting with latest
kernel.I have
Gleb's irq delivery incorporated into the patch series. But I am
thinknig whether I can
improve some guest side logic in unlock.
I will probably setup a githup and post the link soon.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-23 1:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CAJocwccu5QQyuKRvgNyPSFz2K_rzCW419W9-XdSUYOL7+KqQKg@mail.gmail.com>
2013-04-21 21:12 ` Preemptable Ticket Spinlock Rik van Riel
2013-04-21 23:07 ` Jiannan Ouyang
2013-04-22 5:59 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-04-22 11:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-22 12:52 ` Rik van Riel
2013-04-22 19:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-22 19:56 ` Rik van Riel
2013-04-22 20:05 ` Jiannan Ouyang
2013-04-22 20:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-22 20:32 ` Rik van Riel
2013-04-22 20:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-22 20:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-22 20:50 ` Rik van Riel
2013-04-22 20:50 ` Jiannan Ouyang
2013-04-22 20:54 ` Chegu Vinod
2013-04-22 20:46 ` Jiannan Ouyang
2013-04-22 20:49 ` Rik van Riel
2013-04-22 21:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-23 5:03 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-04-22 20:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-22 21:31 ` Jiannan Ouyang
2013-04-22 23:08 ` Rik van Riel
2013-04-23 5:57 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-04-23 1:42 ` Raghavendra K T [this message]
2013-05-30 11:56 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-05-30 20:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-04-22 21:56 ` Andi Kleen
2013-04-22 23:13 ` Rik van Riel
2013-04-22 5:58 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-04-22 16:42 ` Jiannan Ouyang
2013-04-23 1:54 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-04-26 20:10 ` Andrew Theurer
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=5175E71F.8070307@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=avi.kivity@gmail.com \
--cc=chegu_vinod@hp.com \
--cc=drjones@redhat.com \
--cc=gleb@redhat.com \
--cc=habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=knoel@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=ouyang@cs.pitt.edu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com \
--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