From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Waiman Long Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v5 7/8] pvqspinlock, x86: Add qspinlock para-virtualization support Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 14:42:34 -0500 Message-ID: <530F952A.3030702@hp.com> References: <1393427668-60228-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> <1393427668-60228-8-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> <530F2B8F.1010401@citrix.com> <530F3967.6030805@redhat.com> <530F4949.4050706@citrix.com> <530F4F98.2080308@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <530F4F98.2080308@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , x86@kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Andi Kleen , "H. Peter Anvin" , Michel Lespinasse , Alok Kataria , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Raghavendra K T , Ingo Molnar , Scott J Norton , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, "Paul E. McKenney" , Alexander Fyodorov , Rik van Riel , Arnd Bergmann , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Daniel J Blueman , Oleg Nesterov , Steven Rostedt , Chris Wright , George Spelvin , Thomas Gleixner List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On 02/27/2014 09:45 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 27/02/2014 15:18, David Vrabel ha scritto: >> On 27/02/14 13:11, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> Il 27/02/2014 13:11, David Vrabel ha scritto: >>>>>> This patch adds para-virtualization support to the queue spinlock >>>>>> code >>>>>> by enabling the queue head to kick the lock holder CPU, if known, >>>>>> in when the lock isn't released for a certain amount of time. It >>>>>> also enables the mutual monitoring of the queue head CPU and the >>>>>> following node CPU in the queue to make sure that their CPUs will >>>>>> stay scheduled in. >>>> I'm not really understanding how this is supposed to work. There >>>> appears to be an assumption that a guest can keep one of its VCPUs >>>> running by repeatedly kicking it? This is not possible under Xen >>>> and I >>>> doubt it's possible under KVM or any other hypervisor. >>> >>> KVM allows any VCPU to wake up a currently halted VCPU of its choice, >>> see Documentation/virtual/kvm/hypercalls.txt. >> >> But neither of the VCPUs being kicked here are halted -- they're either >> running or runnable (descheduled by the hypervisor). > > /me actually looks at Waiman's code... > > Right, this is really different from pvticketlocks, where the *unlock* > primitive wakes up a sleeping VCPU. It is more similar to PLE > (pause-loop exiting). > > Paolo Yes, it is mostly to deal with vCPU that are not running because of PLE. -Longman