From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <5783B6D7.7020903@hpe.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 11:10:15 -0400 From: Waiman Long MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] implement vcpu preempted check References: <1467124991-13164-1-git-send-email-xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160706065255.GH30909@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> In-Reply-To: <20160706065255.GH30909@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Pan Xinhui , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, paulus@samba.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, dave@stgolabs.net, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, pbonzini@redhat.com List-ID: On 07/06/2016 02:52 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:43:07AM -0400, Pan Xinhui wrote: >> change fomr v1: >> a simplier definition of default vcpu_is_preempted >> skip mahcine type check on ppc, and add config. remove dedicated macro. >> add one patch to drop overload of rwsem_spin_on_owner and mutex_spin_on_owner. >> add more comments >> thanks boqun and Peter's suggestion. >> >> This patch set aims to fix lock holder preemption issues. >> >> test-case: >> perf record -a perf bench sched messaging -g 400 -p&& perf report >> >> 18.09% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] osq_lock >> 12.28% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] rwsem_spin_on_owner >> 5.27% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] mutex_unlock >> 3.89% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] wait_consider_task >> 3.64% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] _raw_write_lock_irq >> 3.41% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] mutex_spin_on_owner.is >> 2.49% sched-messaging [kernel.vmlinux] [k] system_call >> >> We introduce interface bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu) and use it in some spin >> loops of osq_lock, rwsem_spin_on_owner and mutex_spin_on_owner. >> These spin_on_onwer variant also cause rcu stall before we apply this patch set >> > Paolo, could you help out with an (x86) KVM interface for this? > > Waiman, could you see if you can utilize this to get rid of the > SPIN_THRESHOLD in qspinlock_paravirt? That API is certainly useful to make the paravirt spinlock perform better. However, I am not sure if we can completely get rid of the SPIN_THRESHOLD at this point. It is not just the kvm, the xen code need to be modified as well. Cheers, Longman