From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Jiannan Ouyang <ouyang@cs.pitt.edu>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Avi Kivity <avi.kivity@gmail.com>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Srikar <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@hp.com>,
"Andrew M. Theurer" <habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Preemptable Ticket Spinlock
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:24:44 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5175E9E4.60903@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJocwcc0M2Xr=ozpwLRM1vejMVfofr9n-TpAXU_efB_3MaCF5Q@mail.gmail.com>
On 04/22/2013 10:12 PM, Jiannan Ouyang wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 1:58 AM, Raghavendra K T
> <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
[...]
>>> static __always_inline void __ticket_spin_lock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
>>> {
>>> register struct __raw_tickets inc = { .tail = 1 };
>>> + unsigned int timeout = 0;
>>> + __ticket_t current_head;
>>>
>>> inc = xadd(&lock->tickets, inc);
>>> -
>>> + if (likely(inc.head == inc.tail))
>>> + goto spin;
>>> +
>>> + timeout = TIMEOUT_UNIT * (inc.tail - inc.head);
Forgot to mention about this, for immediate wait case,
you can busyloop instead of timeout (I mean
timeout = TIMEOUT_UNIT * (inc.tail - inc.head -1);
This ideas was used by Rik in his spinlock backoff patches.
>>> + do {
>>> + current_head = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head);
>>> + if (inc.tail <= current_head) {
>>> + goto spin;
>>> + } else if (inc.head != current_head) {
>>> + inc.head = current_head;
>>> + timeout = TIMEOUT_UNIT * (inc.tail - inc.head);
>>
>>
>> Good idea indeed to base the loop on head and tail difference.. But for
>> virtualization I believe this "directly proportional notion" is little
>> tricky too.
>>
>
> Could you explain your concern a little bit more?
>
Consider a big machine with 2 VMs running.
If nth vcpu of say VM1 waiting in the queue, the question is,
Do we have to have all the n VCPU doing busyloop and thus burning
sigma (n*(n+1) * TIMEOUT_UNIT)) ?
OR
Is it that, far off vcpu in the queue worth giving his time back so that
probably some other vcpu of VM1 doing good work OR vcpu of VM2 can
benefit from this.
I mean far the vcpu in the queue, let him yield voluntarily. (inversely
proportional notion just because it is vcpu). and of course for some n <
THRESHOLD we can still have directly proportional wait idea.
Does this idea sound good ?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-23 1:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CAJocwccu5QQyuKRvgNyPSFz2K_rzCW419W9-XdSUYOL7+KqQKg@mail.gmail.com>
2013-04-21 21:12 ` Preemptable Ticket Spinlock Rik van Riel
2013-04-21 23:07 ` Jiannan Ouyang
2013-04-22 5:59 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-04-22 11:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-22 12:52 ` Rik van Riel
2013-04-22 19:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-22 19:56 ` Rik van Riel
2013-04-22 20:05 ` Jiannan Ouyang
2013-04-22 20:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-22 20:32 ` Rik van Riel
2013-04-22 20:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-22 20:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-22 20:50 ` Rik van Riel
2013-04-22 20:50 ` Jiannan Ouyang
2013-04-22 20:54 ` Chegu Vinod
2013-04-22 20:46 ` Jiannan Ouyang
2013-04-22 20:49 ` Rik van Riel
2013-04-22 21:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-23 5:03 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-04-22 20:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-22 21:31 ` Jiannan Ouyang
2013-04-22 23:08 ` Rik van Riel
2013-04-23 5:57 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-04-23 1:42 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-05-30 11:56 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-05-30 20:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-04-22 21:56 ` Andi Kleen
2013-04-22 23:13 ` Rik van Riel
2013-04-22 5:58 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-04-22 16:42 ` Jiannan Ouyang
2013-04-23 1:54 ` Raghavendra K T [this message]
2013-04-26 20:10 ` Andrew Theurer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5175E9E4.60903@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=avi.kivity@gmail.com \
--cc=chegu_vinod@hp.com \
--cc=drjones@redhat.com \
--cc=gleb@redhat.com \
--cc=habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=ouyang@cs.pitt.edu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox