Re: [PATCH V3 6/9] virtio-ccw: implement synchronize_cbs()

Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-04-28T06:17:38Z

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 02:02:16PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 1:55 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 01:51:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 1:24 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 11:04:41AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > But my guess is that rwlock + some testing for the legacy indicator case
> > > > > > just to double check if there is a heavy regression despite of our
> > > > > > expectations to see none should do the trick.
> > > > >
> > > > > I suggest this, rwlock (for not airq) seems better than spinlock, but
> > > > > at worst case it will cause cache line bouncing. But I wonder if it's
> > > > > noticeable (anyhow it has been used for airq).
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > Which existing rwlock does airq use right now? Can we take it to sync?
> > >
> > > It's the rwlock in airq_info, it has already been used in this patch.
> > >
> > > write_lock(&info->lock);
> > > write_unlock(&info->lock);
> > >
> > > But the problem is, it looks to me there could be a case that airq is
> > > not used, (virtio_ccw_int_hander()). That's why the patch use a
> > > spinlock, it could be optimized with using a rwlock as well.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> >
> > Ah, right. So let's take that on the legacy path too and Halil promises
> > to test to make sure performance isn't impacted too badly?
>
> I think what you meant is using a dedicated rwlock instead of trying
> to reuse one of the airq_info locks.
>
> If this is true, it should be fine.
>
> Thanks

yes

> >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > MST
> > > >
> >