From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 05/11] pvqspinlock, x86: Allow unfair spinlock in a
	PV guest
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:54:50 +0000
Message-ID: <53218E7A.8090707@citrix.com>
References: <1394650498-30118-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
	<1394650498-30118-6-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <1394650498-30118-6-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/>
List-Post: <mailto:virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>, Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, "H.
	Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>, x86@kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Alok Kataria <akataria@vmware.com>, Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>, Chegu Vinod <chegu>
List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org

On 12/03/14 18:54, 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
> good idea as there is a possibility of lock starvation for a heavily
> contended lock.

I do not think this is a good idea -- the problems with unfair locks are
worse in a virtualized guest.  If a waiting VCPU deschedules and has to
be kicked to grab a lock then it is very likely to lose a race with
another running VCPU trying to take a lock (since it takes time for the
VCPU to be rescheduled).

> With the unfair locking activated on bare metal 4-socket Westmere-EX
> box, the execution times (in ms) of a spinlock micro-benchmark were
> as follows:
> 
>   # of    Ticket       Fair	    Unfair
>   tasks    lock     queue lock    queue lock
>   ------  -------   ----------    ----------
>     1       135        135	     137
>     2      1045       1120	     747
>     3      1827       2345     	    1084
>     4      2689       2934	    1438
>     5      3736       3658	    1722
>     6      4942       4434	    2092
>     7      6304       5176          2245
>     8      7736       5955          2388

Are these figures with or without the later PV support patches?

David