Re: [PATCH RFC v5 4/8] pvqspinlock, x86: Allow unfair spinlock in a real PV environment

[Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>]

Il 28/02/2014 18:06, Waiman Long ha scritto:
> On 02/26/2014 12:07 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:14:24AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> Locking is always an issue in a virtualized environment as the virtual
>>> CPU that is waiting on a lock may get scheduled out and hence block
>>> any progress in lock acquisition even when the lock has been freed.
>>>
>>> One solution to this problem is to allow unfair lock in a
>>> para-virtualized environment. In this case, a new lock acquirer can
>>> come and steal the lock if the next-in-line CPU to get the lock is
>>> scheduled out. Unfair lock in a native environment is generally not a
>> Hmm, how do you know if the 'next-in-line CPU' is scheduled out? As
>> in the hypervisor knows - but you as a guest might have no idea
>> of it.
>
> I use a heart-beat counter to see if the other side responses within a
> certain time limit. If not, I assume it has been scheduled out probably
> due to PLE.

PLE is unnecessary if you have "true" pv spinlocks where the 
next-in-line schedules itself out with a hypercall (Xen) or hlt 
instruction (KVM).  Set a bit in the qspinlock before going to sleep, 
and the lock owner will know that it needs to kick the next-in-line.

I think there is no need for the unfair lock bits.  1-2% is a pretty 
large hit.

Paolo